# Balraj Singh Bhadauria v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1533
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-10-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58503 of 2013
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/balraj-singh-bhadauria-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42741
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
Law-Reinstatement in service-dismissal
order-became
final
in
departmental
appeal-acquittal in criminal proceedingshall not give automatic reinstatementin absence of challenge of dismissalrightly refused to reinstate in servicewarrant no interference by writ court.

Held: Para-19
As stated above, the petitioner has not
challenged the punishment order. The
punishment order has attained finality.
The petitioner is not able to show any
provisions under the service rules for
reinstatement after acquittal in criminal
proceeding, therefore, in view of the
laws laid down by the Apex Court and
this Court, referred herein-above, the
petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated
in service.

Case Law discussed:
1999(82) FLR 627; (2005) 10 SCC 471; (2004)
8 SCC 200; (2007) 10 SCC 385; (2007) 9 SCC
755; (2013) 1 SCC 598; AIR 1964 SC 787.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 40,585. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1533
such case and denial of compassionate
appointment in such case deserves to be
sustained and would not be justified to be
interfered by this Court.

11. In view of above discussion, I
find no merit in the writ petition.
Dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58503 of 2013

Balraj Singh Bhadauria ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Pankaj
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.N. Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
Law-Reinstatement in service-dismissal
order-became
final
in
departmental
appeal-acquittal in criminal proceedingshall not give automatic reinstatementin absence of challenge of dismissalrightly refused to reinstate in servicewarrant no interference by writ court.

Held: Para-19
As stated above, the petitioner has not
challenged the punishment order. The
punishment order has attained finality.
The petitioner is not able to show any
provisions under the service rules for
reinstatement after acquittal in criminal
proceeding, therefore, in view of the
laws laid down by the Apex Court and
this Court, referred herein-above, the
petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated
in service.

Case Law discussed:
1999(82) FLR 627; (2005) 10 SCC 471; (2004)
8 SCC 200; (2007) 10 SCC 385; (2007) 9 SCC
755; (2013) 1 SCC 598; AIR 1964 SC 787.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri R.N. Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order dated 1.2.2013 passed by the
Regional Manager, Sarva U.P. Gramin
Bank, 803/B-1, Gwalior Road, Jhansi as
well as order dated 3.10.2013 passed by
the Secretary Board, Sarva U.P. Gramin
Bank, Head Office, Jhansi.

3. It appears that the petitioner has been
punished by order dated 28.5.2003 and he has
been terminated from the service against
which appeal filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2003. The
petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid two
orders further and the aforesaid two orders
have attained finality.

4. It appears that the petitioner has
been acquitted in criminal proceeding vide
order dated 29.2.2012. After the acquittal, the
petitioner moved an application on 6.8.2012
for reinstatement, which has been refused
vide order dated 1.2.2013, which is being
challenged in the writ petition.

5. We do not find any merit in the
writ petition.
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not
challenged the punishment order and the
appellate order. Both the orders have
become final and the punishment of the
petitioner has attained finality. Merely
because the petitioner has been acquitted
in criminal proceeding, he cannot be
entitled for his reinstatement.

7. It is settled principle of law that, both,
disciplinary proceeding and the criminal
proceeding are two separate proceedings and
merely because the petitioner has been
acquitted in criminal proceeding, he cannot be
reinstated in service.

8. In the case of Capt. M Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
reported in 1999 (82) FLR 627, the Apex
Court, after considering various decisions
of the Apex Court, in paragraph 20, has
formulated certain parameters with regard
to departmental proceedings and the
proceedings in a criminal case, which
reads as under:

"20. The conclusions which are
deductible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are:

(i)Departmental
proceedings
and
proceedings in a criminal case can
proceed simultaneously as there is no bar
in their being conducted simultaneously
though separately.

(ii)If the departmental proceedings
and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the
charge in the criminal case against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature
which involves complicated questions of
law and fact, it would be desirable to stay
the departmental proceedings till the
conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a
criminal
case
is
grave
and
whether
complicated questions of fact and law are
involved in that case, will depend upon the
nature of offence, the nature of the case
launched against the employee on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him
during investigation or as reflected in the
chargesheet.

(iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and
(iii) above cannot be considered in
isolation
to
stay
the
departmental
proceedings, but due regard has to be
given to the fact that the departmental
proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v)If the criminal case does not proceed
or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the
departmental proceedings, even if they were
stayed on account of the pendency of the
criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded
with so as to conclude them at an early date,
so that if the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is
found guilty, administration may get rid of
him at the earliest."

9. In the case of State Bank of India
and others vs. R.B Sharma, reported in
(2004) 7 SCC 27, the Apex Court, in
paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11, held as follows:

"8. The purpose of departmental
enquiry and of prosecution are two
different and distinct aspects. Criminal
prosecution is launched for an offence for
violation of a duty the offender owes to
the society, or for breach of which law
3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1535
has provided that the offender shall make
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an
act of commission in violation of law or
of
omission
of
public
duty.
The
departmental enquiry is to maintain
discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. It would, therefore, be
expedient
that
the
disciplinary
proceedings are conducted and completed
as expeditiously as possible. It is not,
therefore, desirable to lay down any
guidelines as inflexible rules in which the
departmental proceedings may or may not
be stayed pending trial in criminal case
against the delinquent officer. Each case
requires to be considered in the backdrop
of its own facts and circumstances. There
would
be
no
bar
to
proceed
simultaneously with departmental enquiry
and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave
nature involving complicated questions of
fact and law. Offence generally implies
infringement
of
public
duty,
as
distinguished from mere private rights
punishable under criminal law. When trial
for criminal offence is conducted it should
be in accordance with proof of the offence
as per the evidence defined under the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act').
Converse is the case of departmental
enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental
proceedings relates to conduct or breach
of duty of the delinquent officer to punish
him for his misconduct defined under the
relevant statutory rules or law. That the
strict standard of proof or applicability of
the Evidence Act stands excluded is a
settled
legal
position.
Under
these
circumstances, what is required to be seen
is whether the department enquiry would
seriously prejudice the delinquent in his
defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is
always a question of fact to be considered
in each case depending on its own facts
and circumstances.

9. A three-judge Bench of this Court
in Depot Manager, A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf
Miya and Ors., reported in (1997 (2) SCC
699) analysed the legal position in great
detail on the above lines.

10. The aforesaid position was also
noted in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena, reported in (1996 (6) SCC 417).

11. There can be no straight jacket
formula as to in which case the
departmental proceedings are to be
stayed. There may be cases where the trial
of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory
method adopted by delinquent official. He
cannot be permitted to, on one hand,
prolong criminal case and at the same
time contend that the departmental
proceedings should be stayed on the
ground that the criminal case is pending."

10. In the case of State of Rajasthan
vs. B.K. Meena, reported in (1996) 6 SCC
417, the Apex Court, in Paragraphs 14
and 17, has observed as follows:

"14. It would be evident from the
above decisions that each of them starts
with the indisputable proposition that
there is no legal bar for both proceedings
to go on simultaneously and then say that
in certain situations, it may not be
'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to
proceed with the disciplinary enquiry
when a criminal case is pending on
identical
charges.
The
staying
of
disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised,
is a matter to be determined having regard
to the facts and circumstances of a given
case and that no hard and fast rules can
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
enunciated in that behalf. The only
ground suggested in the above decisions
as constituting a valid ground for staying
the disciplinary proceedings is "that the
defence of the employee in the criminal
case may not be prejudiced." This ground
has, however, been hedged in by
providing further that this may be done in
cases of grave nature involving questions
of fact and law. In our respectful opinion,
it means that not only the charges must be
grave but that the case must involve
complicated questions of law and fact.
Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or
'propriety', as the case may be, has to be
determined in each case taking into
consideration
all
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case. The ground
indicated in D.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is
not also an invariable rule. It is only a
factor which will go into the scales while
judging the advisability or desirability of
staying the disciplinary proceedings. One
of the contending consideration is that the
disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and
should not be delayed unduly. So far as
criminal cases are concerned, it is well-
known that they drag on endlessly where
high officials or persons holding high
public offices involved. They get bogged
down on one or the other ground. They
hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion.
That is the reality inspite of repeated
advice and admonitions from this Court
and the High Courts. If a criminal case is
unduly delayed that may itself be a good
ground
for
going
ahead
with
the
disciplinary enquiry even where the
disciplinary proceedings are held over at
an
earlier
stage.
The
interests
of
administration and good government
demand
that
these
proceedings
are
concluded expeditiously. It must be
remembered
that
interests
of
administration
demand
that
the
undesirable elements are thrown out and
any charge of misdemeanor is enquired
into
promptly.
The
disciplinary
proceedings are meant not really to punish
the guilty but to keep the administrative
machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad
elements. The interest of the delinquent
officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not
guilty of the charges, his honour should
be vindicated at the earliest possible
moment and if he is guilty, he should be
dealt with promptly according to law. It is
not also in the interest of administration
that
persons
accused
of
serious
misdemeanor should be continued in
office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting
the
result
of
criminal
proceedings. It is not in the interest of
administration. It only serves the interest
of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not
possible to enumerate the various factors,
for and against the stay of disciplinary
proceedings, we found it necessary to
emphasise
some
of
the
important
considerations in view of the fact that
very often the disciplinary proceedings
are being stayed for long periods pending
criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be, and should not be,
a matter of course. All the relevant
factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in
view the various principles laid down in
the decisions referred to above.

17. There is yet another reason. The
approach and the objective in the criminal
proceedings
and
the
disciplinary
proceedings is altogether distinct and
different. In the disciplinary proceedings,
the question is whether the respondent is
guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal
from
service
or
a
lesser
punishment, as the case may be, whereas
in the criminal proceedings the question is
3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1537
whether offences registered against him
under the Prevention of Corruption Act
(and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are
established and, if established, what
sentence should be imposed upon him.
The standard of proof, the mode of
enquiry and the rules governing the
enquiry and trial in both the cases are
entirely distinct and different. Staying of
disciplinary proceedings pending criminal
proceedings, to repeat, should not be
matter of course but a considered
decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the
decision may require reconsideration if
the criminal case gets unduly delayed."

11. The Apex Court in the case of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
And others vs. Sarvesh Berry, reported in
(2005) 10 SCC 471, has held as follows:

"14. That being the position, the
High Court was not justified in directing
stay of the departmental proceedings
pending conclusion of the criminal
charge. As noted in Capt. M. Paul
Anthony's case (supra) where there is
delay in the disposal of a criminal case the
departmental
proceedings
can
be
proceeded with so that the conclusion can
be arrived at an early date. If ultimately
the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he
is found guilty the employer may get rid
of him at the earliest."

12. The Apex Court, in the case of
Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and another, reported
in (2004) 8 SCC 200, held as follows:

"26.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents in regard to the above contention
relied on a judgment of this Court in the case
of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra). In our
opinion, even that case would not support the
respondents herein because in the said case
the evidence led in the criminal case, as well
as in the domestic enquiry was one and the
same and the criminal case having acquitted
the workmen on the very same evidence, this
Court came to the conclusion that the finding
to the contrary on the very same evidence by
the domestic enquiry would be unjust, unfair
and rather oppressive. It is to be noted that in
that case the finding by the tribunal was
arrived in an ex parte departmental
proceeding. In the case in hand, we have
noticed that before the Labour Court the
evidence led by the management was
different from that led by the prosecution in
the criminal case and the materials before the
criminal court and the Labour Court were
entirely different. Therefore, it was open to
the Labour Court to have come to an
independent conclusion de hors the finding
of the criminal court. But at this stage it
should be noted that it is not as if the Labour
Court in the instant case was totally oblivious
of the proceedings before the criminal court.
The Labour Court has in fact perused the
order of the Judicial Magistrate and the
exhibits produced therein and come to an
independent conclusion that the order of the
criminal case has no bearing on the
proceedings before it which finding of the
Labour Court, in our opinion, is justified. It
may be some use to us to refer at this stage to
a judgment of this Court in the case of State
of Rajasthan (supra) wherein it is held thus:

"There is yet another reason. The
approach and the objective in the criminal
proceedings
and
the
disciplinary
proceedings is altogether distinct and
different. In the disciplinary proceedings,
the question is whether the respondent is
guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal
from
service
or
a
lesser
punishment, as the case may be, whereas
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the criminal proceedings the question is
whether the offences registered against
him under the Prevention of Corruption
Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any)
are established and, if established, what
sentence should be imposed upon him.
The standard of proof, the mode of
enquiry and the rules governing the
enquiry and trial in both the cases are
entirely distinct and different."

27. From the above, it is seen that the
approach and the objectives of the
criminal proceedings and the disciplinary
proceedings are altogether distinct and
different.
The
observations
therein
indicate that the Labour Court is not
bound by the findings of the criminal
court."

13. In the case of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas,
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 442, the Apex
Court, in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, held as
follows:

9.
In
State
of
Rajasthan
vs.
B.K.Meena & Ors., reported in (1996) 6
SCC, the court held:

"The only ground suggested in the
decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court
as
constituting a valid ground for staying the
disciplinary proceedings is that "the defence
of the employee in the criminal case may not
be prejudiced". This ground has, however,
been hedged in by providing further that this
may be done in cases of grave nature
involving questions of fact and law. It means
that not only the charges must be grave but
that the case must involve complicated
questions of law and fact. Moreover,
'advisability', desirability', or propriety, as the
case may be, of staying the departmental
enquiry has to be determined in each case
taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case.
Stay
of
disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and
should not be, a matter of course. All the
relevant factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in
view the various principles laid down in the
Supreme Court's decisions." (Emphasis
supplied)

10. From the above, it is clear that the
advisability, desirability or propriety, as the
case may be, in regard to a departmental
enquiry has to be determined in each case
taking into consideration all facts and
circumstances of the case. This judgment
also lays down that the stay of departmental
proceedings cannot be and should not be a
matter of course.

11.In the instant case, from the order
of the tribunal as also from the impugned
order of the High Court, we do not find
that
the
two
forums
below
have
considered the special facts of this case
which persuaded them to stay the
departmental
proceedings.
On
the
contrary, reading of the two impugned
orders indicates that both the tribunal and
the High Court proceeded as if a
departmental enquiry had to be stayed in
every case where a criminal trial in regard
to the same misconduct is pending.
Neither the tribunal nor the High Court
did take into consideration the seriousness
of the charge which pertains to acceptance
of illegal gratification and the desirability
of continuing the respondent in service
inspite of such serious charges levelled
against him. This Court in the said case of
State of Rajasthan (supra) has further
observed that the approach and the
objective in the criminal proceedings and
the disciplinary proceedings is altogether
distinct and different. It held that in the
disciplinary proceedings the question is
whether the respondent is guilty of such
3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1539
conduct as would merit his removal from
service or a lesser punishment, as the case
may
be,
whereas
in
the
criminal
proceedings the question is whether the
offences registered against him are
established and, if established, what
sentence should be imposed upon him.
The court in the above case further noted
that the standard of proof, the mode of
enquiry and the rules governing the
enquiry and trial in both the cases are
distinct and different. On that basis, in the
case of State of Rajasthan the facts which
seem to be almost similar to the facts of
this case held that the tribunal fell in error
in staying the disciplinary proceedings."

14. The Apex Court, in the case of
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association vs.
NOIDA and others, reported in (2007) 10
SCC 385, has observed has follows:

"11. A bare perusal of the order
which has been quoted in its totality goes
to show that the same is not based on any
rational
foundation.
The
conceptual
difference
between
a
departmental
enquiry and criminal proceedings has not
been kept in view. Even orders passed by
the executive have to be tested on the
touchstone of reasonableness. (See Tata
Cellular v. Union of India and Teri Oat
Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh). The
conceptual
difference
between
departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings have been highlighted by this
Court in several cases. Reference may be
made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v.
T. Srinivas, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry and Uttaranchal
RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal.

"8.....The purpose of departmental
enquiry and of prosecution are two different
and
distinct
aspects.
The
criminal
prosecution is launched for an offence for
violation of a duty the offender owes to the
society, or for breach of which law has
provided that the offender shall make
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act
of commission in violation of law or of
omission of public duty. The departmental
enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. It
would, therefore, be expedient that the
disciplinary proceedings are conducted and
completed as expeditiously as possible. It is
not, therefore, desirable to lay down any
guidelines as inflexible rules in which the
departmental proceedings may or may not be
stayed pending trial in criminal case against
the delinquent officer. Each case requires to
be considered in the backdrop of its own
facts and circumstances. There would be no
bar
to
proceed
simultaneously
with
departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal
case unless the charge in the criminal trial is
of grave nature involving complicated
questions of fact and law. Offence generally
implies infringement of public duty, as
distinguished from mere private rights
punishable under criminal law. When trial
for criminal offence is conducted it should be
in accordance with proof of the offence as
per the evidence defined under the provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the
'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of
departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a
departmental proceedings relates to conduct
or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to
punish him for his misconduct defined under
the relevant statutory rules or law. That the
strict standard of proof or applicability of the
Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled
legal position. Under these circumstances,
what is required to be seen is whether the
department
enquiry
would
seriously
prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the
trial in a criminal case. It is always a question
of fact to be considered in each case
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
depending
on
its
own
facts
and
circumstances."

15. A three-Judges Bench of this
Court in Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v.
Mohd. Yousuf Miya (SCC pp.704-05,
para 8) analysed the legal position in great
detail on the above lines.

16. The standard of proof required in
departmental proceedings is not the same
as required to prove a criminal charge and
even if there is an aquittal in the criminal
proceedings, the same does not bar
departmental proceedings. That being so,
the order of the State Government
declining not to continue the departmental
proceeding is clearly untenable and is
quashed. The departmental proceedings
shall continue."

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. vs. N.
Balakrishnan, reported in (2007) 9 SCC
755, observed as follows:

"21. There are evidently two lines of
decisions of this Court operating in the
field. One being the cases which would
come within the purview of Capt. Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679] and G.M. Tank v.
State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 5 SCC
446]. However, the second line of decisions
show that an honourable acquittal in the
criminal case itself may not be held to be
determinative in respect of order of punishment
meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia,
when : (i) the order of acquittal has not been
passed on the same set of fact or same set of
evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the
standard of proof in a criminal trial and
disciplinary
proceeding
has
not
been
considered. [See Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 SCC 265],
or; where the delinquent officer was charged
with something more than the subject-matter of
the criminal case and/or covered by a decision
of the Civil Court. [See G.M. Tank (supra),
Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Others
- 2006 (11) SCALE 204, and Noida
Enterprises Assn. v. Noida & Others - 2007 (2)
SCALE 131 Para 18]

22. In Narinder Mohan Arya v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others [(2006)
4 SCC 713], this Court held:

"39. Under certain circumstances, a
decision of a civil court is also binding
upon
the
criminal
court
although,
converse is not true. (See Karam Chand
Ganga Prasad v. Union of India).
However, it is also true that the standard
of proof in a criminal case and civil case
is different.

40. We may notice that in Capt. M.
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
this Court observed: (SCC p. 695, para
35)

"35. Since the facts and the evidence
in both the proceedings, namely, the
departmental
proceedings
and
the
criminal case were the same without there
being
any
iota
of
difference,
the
distinction, which is usually drawn as
between the departmental proceedings
and the criminal case on the basis of
approach and burden of proof, would not
be applicable to the instance case."

41. We may not be understood to have
laid down a law that in all such circumstances
the decision of the civil court or the criminal
court would be binding on the disciplinary
authorities as this Court in large number of
decisions points out that the same would
depend upon other factors as well. See e.g.
Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya
3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1541
Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Manager, Reserve
bank of India v. S. Mani. Each case is,
therefore, required to be considered on its own
facts."

17. In the case of Deputy Inspector
General of Police and another vs. S.
Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC
598, the Apex Court, in paragraphs 23 to
27, has observed as follows:

"23. We are of the view that the mere
acquittal of an employee by a criminal
court has no impact on the disciplinary
proceedings initiated by the Department.
The respondent, it may be noted, is a
member of a disciplined force and non
examination of two key witnesses before
the criminal court that is Adiyodi and
Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in
the conduct of the criminal case by the
Prosecution. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the possibility
of winning over P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the
criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail
to see, why the Prosecution had not
examined Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi
and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It
was these two Head Constables who took the
respondent from the scene of occurrence
along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife,
to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their
presence that the complaint was registered. In
fact, the criminal court has also opined that the
signature of PW 1 (husband - complainant) is
found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the
Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before
the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was
under the influence of liquor and that he had
refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That
being the factual situation, we are of the view
that the respondent was not honourably
acquitted by the criminal court, but only due
to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile
and other prosecution witnesses were not
examined.

Honourable Acquittal

The
meaning
of
the
expression
''honourable
acquittal'
came
up
for
consideration before this Court in Reserve
Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this
Court has considered the impact of Regulation
46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a
criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings.
In that context, this Court held that the mere
acquittal does not entitle an employee to
reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was
held, has to be honourable. The expressions
''honourable acquittal', ''acquitted of blame',
''fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which
are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant by
the expression ''honourably acquitted'. When
the accused is acquitted after full consideration
of prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove the
charges levelled against the accused, it can
possibly be said that the accused was
honourably acquitted.

25. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India,
AIR 1964 SC 787, it was held even in the
case
of
acquittal,
departmental
proceedings may follow where the
acquittal is other than honourable. In State
of Assam and another v. Raghava
Rajgopalachari reported in 1972 SLR 45,
this Court quoted with approval the views
expressed by Lord Williams, J. in (1934)
61 ILR Cal. 168 which is as follows:

"The expression "honourably acquitted"
is one which is unknown to court of justice.
Apparently it is a form of order used in
courts martial and other extra judicial
tribunals. We said in our judgment that we
1542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accepted the explanation given by the
appellant believed it to be true and
considered that it ought to have been
accepted by the Government authorities and
by the magistrate. Further, we decided that
the appellant had not misappropriated the
monies referred to in the charge. It is thus
clear that the effect of our judgment was that
the appellant was acquitted as fully and
completely as it was possible for him to be
acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to
what
Government
authorities
term
''honourably acquitted'".

26. As we have already indicated, in the
absence of any provision in the service rule
for reinstatement, if an employee is
honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court,
no right is conferred on the employee to
claim any benefit including reinstatement.
Reason is that the standard of proof required
for holding a person guilty by a criminal
court and the enquiry conducted by way of
disciplinary proceeding is entirely different.
In a criminal case, the onus of establishing
the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution
and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to
be innocent. It is settled law that the strict
burden of proof required to establish guilt in
a criminal court is not required in a
disciplinary proceedings and preponderance
of probabilities is sufficient. There may be
cases where a person is acquitted for
technical reasons or the prosecution giving
up other witnesses since few of the other
witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on
hand the prosecution did not take steps to
examine many of the crucial witnesses on the
ground that the complainant and his wife
turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted
the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We
are not prepared to say in the instant case, the
respondent was honourably acquitted by the
criminal court and even if it is so, he is not
entitled to claim reinstatement since the
Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.

27. We have also come across cases
where the service rules provide that on
registration of a criminal case, an employee can
be kept under suspension and on acquittal by
the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such
cases, the re-instatement is automatic. There
may be cases where the service rules provide in
spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court
acquits an employee honourably, he could be
reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an
employee has to be reinstated in service or not
depends upon the question whether the service
rules
contain
any
such
provision
for
reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such
provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu
Service Rules."

18. On the consideration of the
decisions of the Apex Court, referred
herein-above, this Court in W.P. N0.
54159 of 2012, Mohd. Ismail Naqvi Vs.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Through Registrar & another, decided on
23.5.2013 has summarised the principle
of law as follows:

"(a) Departmental proceeding and
the criminal proceeding are two different
and distinct proceedings. The purpose of
both the proceedings are different. The
criminal prosecution is launched for an
offence for violation of a duty the
offender owes to the society, or for breach
of which law has provided that the
offence shall make satisfaction to the
public whereas the departmental enquiry
is meant to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service.

(b) There would be no bar to proceed,
simultaneously with departmental enquiry and
the trial of a criminal case unless the charge in
the criminal trial is of grave nature involving
complicated questions of fact and law.
3 All] Balraj Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1543

(c)The enquiry in a departmental
proceeding relates to conduct or breach of
duty of the delinquent officer to punish
him for his misconduct defined under the
relevant statutory rules or law. The strict
standard of proof or applicability of the
Evidence Act stands excluded.

(d) The only ground for staying the
disciplinary proceeding is "that the
defence of the employee in the criminal
case may not be prejudiced.

(e)
'Advisability',
'desirability'
or
'propriety', as the case may be, has to be
determined in each case taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances
of the case. It is only a factor which will go
into the scales while judging the advisability
or desirability of staying the disciplinary
proceedings.
One
of
the
contending
consideration is that the disciplinary enquiry
cannot be and should not be delayed unduly.
So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is
well known that they drag on endlessly
where high officials or persons holding high
public offices involved.

(f) The interest of the administration
and good governance demand that the
proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It
must be remembered that the interest of the
administration demands that the undesirable
element are thrown out on any charge of
misdemeanour is enquired into promptly.
The disciplinary proceedings are meant not
really to punish the guilty, but to keep the
administrative
machinery
unsullied
by
getting rid of bad elements in the services.

(g) It is not also in the interest of
administration that persons accused of
serious misdemeanor should be continued in
office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It
is not in the interest of administration. It only
serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest.

(h) Stay of disciplinary proceedings
cannot be, and should not be, a matter of
course, but a considered decision. Even if
it is stayed at one stage, the decision may
require reconsideration, if the criminal
case get unduly delayed.

(i) The standard of proof required in
the departmental proceedings is not the
same as is required to prove a criminal
charge and even if there is an acquittal in
the criminal proceedings, the same does
not bar departmental proceedings.

(j) In the absence of any provision in
the Service Rule for reinstatement, if an
employee is honourably acquitted by a
criminal court, even then no right is
conferred on the employee to claim any
benefit, including the reinstatement for
reason that the standard of proof required
for holding a person guilty by a criminal
court and the enquiry conducted by way
of disciplinary proceeding is entirely
different. In a criminal case, the onus of
establishing the guilt of the accused is on
the prosecution and if it fails to establish
the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the
accused is assumed to be innocent.

(k) It is settled law that the strict burden
of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal
court is not required in a disciplinary
proceedings and preponderance of probabilities
is sufficient. There may be cases where a
person is acquitted for technical reasons or the
prosecution giving up other witnesses since
few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc.,
but it may not of any help in the disciplinary
proceedings."

19. As stated above, the petitioner has
not challenged the punishment order. The
punishment order has attained finality. The
1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner is not able to show any provisions
under the service rules for reinstatement after
acquittal in criminal proceeding, therefore, in
view of the laws laid down by the Apex
Court and this Court, referred herein-above,
the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated
in service.

20. In view of the foregoing
discussions
and
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I do not see
any reason to interfere in the matter. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ANAJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58778 of 2013

Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti &
Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri I.N. Singh, Sri Ajay Yadav, Sri Ravi
Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Tarun Verma, Sri Vikas
Budhwar, Sri Ashish Agarwal.

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Petitioner
challenging of advertisement for L.P.G. gas
dealership-on
ground-requirement
of
25x30
meter
land's
ownership-heldarbitrary-another requirement dealership
should not be full time working servicealso-held-misconceived
if
dealer
not
possess required land-agency shall be in
hands of moneyed person, owner of landand if dealer working full time service can
not devote proper time in distributionunless marketing guide lines challengedadvertisement can not be questioned.

Held: Para-16,17,18
16. A person possessed of land outside
the limits defined, qua a particular
location, is not qualified for being
considered for grant of dealership in a
particular municipal/town/village, as he
will not be able to construct the godown
in terms of the stipulations of the policy.
The requirement of land separately for
each location is, therefore, fair and just.

17. So far as the induction of the spouse as
deemed co-owner to the extent of 50% is
concerned, we find that such condition is in
the larger public interest. The wives in poor
country like India are mostly unemployed,
and are dependent upon her husband for
their livelihood. Their interest has to be
protected and for this purpose the Oil
Companies
have
come
up
with
the
stipulation that the spouse must be deemed
to be a co-owner of 50% of the dealership.
Such stipulation in our opinion need not be
interfered by this Court, being in the larger
interest of the society.

18. The stipulation with regard to the
resignation from the employment by the
applicant, on being selected as dealer, is
also fair and just.