# State of U.P. & Ors v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 2140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-17
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 6880 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-u-p-state-public-services-tribunal-lucknow-anr-44708
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal)
Rule, 1991; Section 14 (1) - honorable
acquittal in criminal case will exonerate the
petitioner from departmental proceedings -
squarely covered by S. Bhaskar Reddy case

" An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would
not stand on par with a clean acquittal on
merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is
no indication of the witnesses being won over.
The long standing view on this subject was
settled by this Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of
India, whereby it was held that a departmental
proceeding can proceed even though a person
is acquitted when the acquittal is other than
honorable" (Para 34)

The expressions "honorable acquittal", "acquitted
of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the
Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code,
which are coined by judicial pronouncements.
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 honorably
acquitted. (Para 43)

B. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
doctrine of equality applies on the
delinquents - no discrimination while
imposing punishment
Punishment should not be disproportionate
while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same
transaction or incident. (Para 53)

Writ petition dismissed (E-10)
Precedent followed: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,835 of 77,868. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39835 for what follows._

2140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they were kept in different files. It is also
not the charge against respondent no.1
that he had failed to realize the amount of
entertainment tax payable by the cable
operators. Accordingly, at the most
respondent no.1 can be said to have
conducted himself negligently but there
being no serious consequence of keeping
Forms-5 at separate place, such act of
respondent no.1 cannot, in our considered
opinion, be construed as misconduct.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we do
not find any illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed
by U.P State Public Service Tribunal
which warrants any interference by this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

15. The writ petition, thus, lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.

16. There will be no order as to
costs.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2140

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Service Bench No. 6880 of 2019

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. State Public Services Tribunal,
Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ganesh Kumar Gupta, Manish Kumar

A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal)
Rule, 1991; Section 14 (1) - honorable
acquittal in criminal case will exonerate the
petitioner from departmental proceedings -
squarely covered by S. Bhaskar Reddy case

" An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would
not stand on par with a clean acquittal on
merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is
no indication of the witnesses being won over.
The long standing view on this subject was
settled by this Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of
India, whereby it was held that a departmental
proceeding can proceed even though a person
is acquitted when the acquittal is other than
honorable" (Para 34)

The expressions "honorable acquittal", "acquitted
of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the
Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code,
which are coined by judicial pronouncements.
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 honorably
acquitted. (Para 43)

B. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
doctrine of equality applies on the
delinquents - no discrimination while
imposing punishment
Punishment should not be disproportionate
while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same
transaction or incident. (Para 53)

Writ petition dismissed (E-10)
Precedent followed: -

1.
S.
Bhaskar
Reddy
&
anr
Vs
Superintendent of Police & anr (2015) 2 SCC
365
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2141
Cases referred: -

1. G.M. Tank Vs St of Guj & ors (2006) 5 SCC 446
2. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs Inspector
General Central Industrial Security Force & ors
(2019) SCC Online
SC 952
3. Joginder Singh Vs Union Territory Of
Chandigarh & ors (2015) 2 SCC 377
4. U.O.I. Vs Sardar Bahadur (1972) SCC 618
5. Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC Vs Mohd. Yusuf
Miya (1997) 2 SCC 699
6. Suresh Pathrella Vs Oriental Bank of
Commerce (2006) 10 SCC 572
7. West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) Vs Ram
Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729
8. Mazdoor Sangh Vs Usha Breco Ltd. (2008)
5 SCC 554
9. Samar Bahadur Singh Vs St of U.P. (2011)
9 SCC 94
10. Karnataka SRTC Vs M.G. Vittal Rao (2012)
1 SCC 442
11. Inspector General of Police Vs S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598
12. SBI Vs Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2
SCC 740
13. Commr. Of Police Vs Meher Singh (2013) 7
SCC 685
14. SBI Vs R. Periyasamy (2015) 3 SCC 101
15. St of W. B. & ors Vs Sankar Ghosh (2014)
3 SCC 610
16. Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and
another Vs P. Ganesan & ors (2008) 1 SCC
650
17. Ajit Kmar Nag Vs Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764
18. Nelson Motis Vs Union of India (1994) 4
SCC 711
19. NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs NOIDA
(2007) 10 SCC 385
20. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Ajay Kumar Tyagi
(2012) 9 SCC 685
21. R.K. Solanki Vs Central Bank of India
(2018) Lab IC 1652
22. Bank of India Vs Degala Suryanarayana
(1999) 5 SCC 762
23. Lalit Popli Vs Canara Bank (2003) 3 SCC 583
24. M.V. Bijlani Vs Union of india (2006) 5 SCC
88
25. Sukh Ram Vs St of U.P. & ors (2018) 4
ESC 1772
26. Director General of Police & ors Vs G.
Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407
27. Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedgrowers'
Union Ltd. Vs Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai
Shah (2006) 6 SCC 548
28. Rajendra Yadav Vs St of M.P. & ors (2013)
3 SCC 73
29. Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & anr Vs
Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372

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

1. Heard Sri Manjeev Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners/State
and Sri Manish Kumar, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Ganesh Kumar Gupta,
learned
counsel
for
the
claimantrespondent no.2/ Sushil Kumar Mishra.

2. By means of present writ petition,
petitioners have prayed for quashing of
the impugned judgment and order dated
4.7.2018 passed by U.P. State Public
2142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Service
Tribunal,
Indira
Bhawan,Lucknow(herein after referred as
the ''Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.1035
of 2014 (Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs. State
of U.P. and others).

3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners are that
on 2.11.2011 a Truck having registration
no. RJ-14 UB3210 was intercepted by the
police of the police-station Chakeri,
District Kanpur Nagar .It was found that
in the said truck cows and bullocks were
being carried for slaughtering. When the
police interrogated the driver of the truck,
namely, Ram Kumar son of Prem Singh
and other persons present in the truck ,
they stated that claimant/respondent no.2
by putting his motorcycle was facilitating
the smooth movement of the truck so that
the cattle present in the truck may be
taken to Bihar for slaughtering.

4. In view of the said fact, an F.I.R.
was lodged on the same day i.e. on
2.11.2011 in case crime no. 1247 of 2011
at police-station Chakeri District Kanpur
under section 11 of the Animal Cruelty
Act and 3/5 and 8 of Cow Slaughter Act.

5.

After
investigation,
the
Investigating
officer
has
submitted
charge-sheet before the court concerned.
Accordingly , a case no. 1A of 2012 (
State Vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra) and case
no.1354A of 2012 ( State Vs. Gyanandra
Bahadur Singh and Sunil Kumar Shukla)
as case crime no.1247 of 2011 under
Sectin 3/8,5Ka/34 Cow Slaughter Act and
section 11/34 of Animal Cruelty Act,
Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur
Nagar was registered. By means of order
dated
28.3.2017,
Additional
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Court
no.3
Kanpur Nagar acquitted the claimantrespondent no.2 and other persons from
the charges levelled against them.

6. In the meantime, under rule 14(1)
of U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate
Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rule
,1991 (herein after referred as the
''Rules,1991')a departmental enquiry was
initiated against the claimant-respondent
no.2 and a charge-sheet dated 21.02.2012
was issued to the claimant-respondent
no.2, to which he submitted a reply on
3.3.2012.Thereafter
enquiry
officer
conducted disciplinary proceeding in the
matter in question and submit his report
dated
27.9.2012
to
the
punishing
authority.
On
29.9.2012
D.I.G./
S.S.P.,Kanpur Nagar/punishing authority
issued a show cause notice to the
claimant-respondent
no.2
alongwith
enquriy report, to which he submitted his
reply.
By
order
dated
23.5.2013,
punishing authority/ S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar
dismissed the claimant- respondent. no.2
from service.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated
23.5.2013, claimant-respondent no.2 filed
an
appeal
before
Deputy
Inspector
General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur
Nagar, the same was dismissed vide order
dated 30.6.2013.

8.

Against
the
orders
dated
23.5.2013
and
30.6.2013,
claimantrespondent no.2 filed revision, the same
was also dismissed by Inspector General
of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur by order
dated 24.1.2014.

9. The claimant-respondent no.2
filed a claim petition no.1035 of 2014
challenging the punishment order dated
23.5.2013,
appellate
order
dated
30.6.2013 and revisional order dated
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2143
24.1.2014 before the Tribunal . By order
dated 4.7.2018 the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition of the claimant-respondent
no.2
and
directed
to
reinstate
the
claimant-respondent no.2 in service and
further directed that so far as the matter in
respect to back wages for the period from
dismissal in service to the period of
reinstatement in service is concerned, the
competent authority shall pass a speaking
order within three months from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of the
order.

10. Sri Manjeev Shukla learned counsel
for the petitioners while challenging the
impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2018
passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition
No.1035 of 2014 ( Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs.
State of U.P. and others) submits that the same
is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of
law as the Tribunal has allowed the claim
petition
only
on
the
ground
that
claimant/respondent no.2 has been acquitted
in the criminal trial therefore he could not
have been punished in the disciplinary
proceedings in relation to the same charges,
matter, the view taken by the Tribunal is
contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its various judgments.

11. He submits that Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in its catena of judgments
has categorically held that a criminal trial
and disciplinary proceedings are carried
out for entirely different purpose and the
standard of proof is also different in both
the proceedings therefore, merely because
acquittal order has been passed in the
criminal trial result of the disciplinary
proceedings
against
a
Government
Servant will not stand affected.

12. He also submits that the Apex
Court in catena of judgemtns has
categorically held that in a criminal trial
on the basis of evidence produced by the
prosecuting agency the case has to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas
in
disciplinary
proceedings
evidence
relied
upon
has
to
be
tested
on
preponderance of probabilities therefore,
even if the Government Servant has been
acquitted in criminal trial , the said
acquittal will not affect the result of the
disciplinary proceedings.

13. He further submits that from a
bare persual of the inquiry report
submitted by the inquiry officer in the
present matter it is patently manifest that
a detailed inquiry has been conducted in
the matter in which statement of witness
have recorded in presence of the claimantrespondent no.2 and he has also been
afforded opportunity to cross examine the
prosecution witnesses in the inquiry and
thereafter inquiry officer has concluded
that the charges leveled against the
claimant-respondent no.2 are proved as
such merely because in relation to the
same matter claimant-respondent no.2 has
been acquitted in criminal trial, the
aforesaid disciplinary inquiry cannot
stand vitiated.

14. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners that in the
disciplinary inquiry it has been found
proved that the conduct of claimant-
respondent no.2 in getting the Truck No.
RJ-14 UB-3210 passed through area is not
proper and has ultimately tarnished the
image of the disciplined force.

15. In rebuttal, Sri Manish Kumar,
learned counsel for claimant-respondent
no.2 submits that on the same incident,
same set of facts, circumstances and
evidence the crime case no.1247/2011
2144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was registered in which the claimantrespondent no.2 has been honorably
acquitted. The dismissal of the claimantrespondent no.2 on the pretext that
charge-sheet has been filed against him in
the criminal case is unsustainable as mere
filing of the charge-sheet by the police
would not amount to conviction of the
claimant- respondent no.2 . In the instant
case, the claimant-respondent no.2 has
been honorably acquitted by the trial court
in the criminal case vide judgment dated
28.3.2017.

16. He further submits that it is a
settled law that where a criminal case in
departmental proceedings are based on
similar facts and evidences and the
employees had been acquitted in the
criminal case, the dismissal would be
unsustainable. In this regard, he has
placed
reliance
on
the
following
judgments:-

1. S. Bhaskar Reddy and another
Vs. Superintendent of Police and
another, (2015) 2 SCC 365

2. G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujrat
and others (2006) 5 SCC 446

3. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs.
Inspector General Central Industrial
Security Force and others (2019) SCC
online SC 952

4. Joginder Singh Vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and others
(2015) 2 SCC 377.

17. Learned counsel for the
claimant-respondent no.2 submits that in
the instant case, the two other persons
named alongwith the opposite party no.2
in the F.I.R. namely Constable Gyanendra
Bahadur Singh and Constable Sunil
Kumar Shukla, against whom also the
charge-sheet was filed by the police in the
criminal case, have been awarded only a
censure entry while in the case of the
claimant-respondent no.2, the order of
dismissal has been passed which is not
only disproportionate to the charges
levelled against the claimant-respondent
no.2 but also discriminatory and in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.

18. He also submits that once it is
not disputed by the petitioners that the
order of dismissal passed against the
claimant-respondent no.2 is on the basis
of same criminal case, same set of facts,
documents and evidence and when the
claimant-respondent
no.2
(alongwith
Constable Gyanendra Bahadur Singh and
Constable Sunil Kumar Shukla) has been
acquitted honourably on 28.3.2017, the
punishment of dismissal is arbitrary and
the judgment dated 4.7.2018 passed by
the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal
being a reasoned and speaking order and
in accordance with law settled in the
judgments of the Hon'ble the Apex Court,
is full justified and there is no infirmity in
the same. Hence, the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed with cost.

19. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and gone through the
record.

20. The undisputed facts of the
present case are that an incident took
place on 2.11.2011 and an F.I.R. was
lodged on the same day i.e. on 2.11.2011
as case crime no. 1247 of 2011 at policestation Chakeri, District-Kanpur under
section 11 of the Animal Cruelty Act and
section 3/5 and 8 of Cow Slaughter Act.
After investigation, the Investigating
officer submitted the charge-sheet before
the court concerned. Thereafter a case no.
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2145
1A of 2012 ( State Vs. Sushil Kumar
Mishra) and case no.1354A of 2012 (State
Vs. Gyanandra Bahadur Singh and Sunil
Kumar Shukla) as case crime no.1247 of
2011 under Section 3/8,5Ka/34 Cow
Slaughter Act and section section 11/34 of
Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station
Chakeri,
District-Kanpur
Nagar
was
registered. By means of order dated
28.3.2017, Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court no.3, Kanpur Nagar
acquitted the claimant-respondent no.2
and other persons from the charges
levelled
against
them.
The
court
concerned while acquitting the claimantrespondent no.2 and other co-accused
persons has given the following findings:-

"प्रश्नगत मामले में अजभयोिन द्वारा जक ी
िानवर का वध जकया िाना या चोटजहल होना
या मृत्यु होने का कथन नहीिं जकया गया है |
कजथत टरक थाना चकेरी, िनपद कानपुर नगर
में ीि जकया गया है िो जबहार राज्य की
 ीमा े बहुत ही दूर है | ऐ े में मात्र
अजभयुक्त के पुजल के मक्ष जदये गये बयान
के आधार पर पररवहन की बात ाजबत नहीिं
होती है |अजभयोिन द्वारा िो ाक्षी प्रस्तुत जकये
गये है, उनमे े जक ी भी ाक्षी ने टरक में लदे
पशुओिं े अजभयुक्तगण उपरोक्त द्वारा
जनदचयता पूवचक करने का कथन नहीिं जकया
गया है | जि े धारा -11 पशुक्रूरता अजधजनयम
उपरोक्त अजभयुक्तगण के जवरुद्ध ाजबत नहीिं
होता है |

उपरोक्त जकये गये म्यक जवश्लेर्ण के
उपराि न्यायालय इ मत पर पहुाँचती है
जक अजभयुक्तगण ुशील कुमार जमश्रा ज्ञानेन्द्र
बहादुर ज ह व ुनील शुक्ला के जवरुद्ध
अजभयोिन धारा 3/8 पजठत धारा -34, 5 क
गो वध जनवारण अजधजनयम व धारा -11 पशु
क्रूरता जनवारण अजधजनयम का आरोप
युल्दक्तयुक्त िंदेह े परे ाजबत करने में
अ फल रहा है। अजभयुक्तगण ुशील
कुमार जमश्रा , ज्ञानेंद्र बहादुर ज िंह व् ुनील
शुक्ला को धारा 3/8 पजठत धारा -34,5 क
गो वध जनवारण अजधजनयम व धारा -11 पशु
क्रूरता जनवारण अजधजनयम के अिगचत
दोर्मुक्त जकये िाने योग्य है।"

21. Further in the present case, In
the meantime a departmental proceedings
against the claimant-respondent no.2
under rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate Rank ( Punishment and
Appeal) Rule ,1991 (herein after referred
as the ''Rules,1991') and a charge-sheet
was issued on 21.2.2012 to the claimantrespondent no.2, to which he submitted a
reply on 3.3.2012 denying the charges
leveled against him. Thereafter enquiry
officer
conducted
the
disciplinary
proceedings and submitted his report
dated
27.9.2012
to
the
punishing
authority. On 29.9.2012 D.I.G./ S.S.P.
Kanpur Nagar/ punishing authority issued
a show cause notice to the claimantrespondent no.2 alongwith enquriy report,
to which he submitted his reply. By order
dated 23.5.2013, punishing authority/
S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar, dismissed the
claimant-respondent no.2 from service.
Thereafter claimant-respondent no.2 filed
an
appeal
before
Deputy
Inspector
General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur
Nagar, the same was dismissed vide order
dated 30.6.2013. Aggrieved by the said
order,
claimant-respondent
has
filed
revision under the Rules,1991 , the same
was also dismissed by Inspector Generl of
Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur by order
dated 24.1.2014.

22. The core question is to be
considered under what circumstances
acquittal
in
criminal
case
will
absolve/exonerate the petitioner from
2146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
departmental punishment. In the present
case, as noticed, the punishment imposed
on the petitioners is not based on the
conclusion of the criminal case. It is based
on
the
findings
recorded
in
the
departmental inquiry which is based on
the depositions of witnesses in the
departmental inquiry. The standard of
proof required in the departmental inquiry
and in the criminal case are different. It is
profitable to refer to certain judgments of
Supreme Court on this aspect.

23. In Union of India Vs. Sardar
Bahadur, (1972) SCC 618, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:

"15.
A
finding
cannot
be
characterized as perverse or unsupported
by any relevant materials if it is a
reasonable inference from proved facts.
Now what are the proved facts: Nand
Kumar as representative of Ram Sarup
Mam Chand and Mam Chand and
Company
of
Calcutta
filed
five
applications for licences to set-up steel
re-rolling mills on 14th June, 1956. On
25th June, 1956, a cheque drawn in
favour of P.S. Sundaram was given to the
respondent by Nand Kumar for Rs. 2500;
the cheque was endorsed and the amount
credited in the account of the respondent.
When the respondent borrowed the
amount in question from Nand Kumar, he
was not working in the Industries Act
Section. Nand Kumar knew that the
respondent was working in the Steel &
Cement Section of the Ministry and the
applications for the grant of licences for
setting up the steel plant re-rolling mills
would go to that section. Even if the
applications were to be dealt with at the
initial stage by the Industries Act Section
the respondent at least was expected to
know that in due course the section in
which he was working had to deal with
the same. This is borne out by the fact that
in July 1956 copies of the applications
were actually sent to the Steel & Cement
Section
where
the
respondent
was
working. If he, therefore, borrowed money
from Nand Kumar a few days earlier it
seems rather clear that he placed himself
under pecuniary obligation to a person
who was likely to have official dealings
with him. The words likely to have official
dealings take within their ambit the
possibility of future dealings between the
officer concerned and the person from
whom he borrowed money. A disciplinary
proceeding is not a criminal trial. The
standard proof required is that of
preponderance of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the
inference that Nand Kumar was a person
likely to have official dealings with the
respondent was one which a reasonable
person would draw from the proved facts
of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a
court of appeal over a decision based on
it. Where there are some relevant
materials
which
the
authority
has
accepted and which materials may
reasonably support the conclusion that
the officer is guilty, it is not the function
of
the
High
Court
exercising
its
jurisdiction under Article 226 to review
the materials and to arrive at an
independent finding on the materials. If
the enquiry has been properly held the
question of adequacy or reliability of the
evidence cannot be canvassed before the
High Court (See : State of Andhra
Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963
SC 1723) No doubt there was no separate
finding on the question whether Nand
Kumar was a person likely to have official
dealings with the respondent by the
Inquiring Officer or the President. But we
think that such a finding was implied
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2147
when they said that Charge No. 3 has
been proved. The only question was
whether the proved facts of the case
would warrant such an inference. Tested
in the light of the standard of proof
necessary to enter a finding of this nature,
we are satisfied that on the material facts
proved the inference and the implied
finding that Nand Kumar was a person
likely to have official dealings with the
respondent were reasonable."

24. In Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC
Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC
699, the Apex Court expressed its view as
under:

"8. We are in respectful agreement
with the above view. 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 (sic 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 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. The enquiry in the
departmental proceedings relates to the
conduct of the delinquent officer and
proof in that behalf is not as high as in an
offence in criminal charge. It is seen that
invariably the departmental enquiry has
to be conducted expeditiously so as to
effectuate
efficiency
in
public
administration and the criminal trial will
take its own course. The nature of
evidence in criminal trial is entirely
different
from
the
departmental
proceedings. In the former, prosecution is
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
on the touchstone of human conduct. The
standard of proof in the departmental
proceedings is not the same as of the
criminal trial. The evidence also is
different from the standard point of the
Evidence Act. The evidence required in
the departmental enquiry is not regulated
by the Evidence Act."

25. In the case of Suresh Pathrella
Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006)
10 SCC 572, the Apex Court held as
under:
2148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"11. In our view, the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge are
fallacious. This Court has taken the view
consistently that acquittal in a criminal
case would be no bar for drawing up a
disciplinary
proceeding
against
the
delinquent officer. It is well-settled
principle of law that the yardstick and
standard of proof in a criminal case is
different
from
the
disciplinary
proceeding. While the standard of proof
in a criminal case is a proof beyond all
reasonable
doubt,
the
proof
in
a
departmental
proceeding
is
preponderance of probabilities."

26. In West Bokaro Colliery
(TISCO Ltd.) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh,
(2008) 3 SCC 729, the Apex Court held
as under:

"20. The Tribunal has set aside the
report of the enquiry officer and the order of
dismissal passed by the punishing authority by
observing that the charges against the
respondent
were
not
proved
beyond
reasonable doubt. It has repeatedly been held
by this Court that the acquittal in a criminal
case would not operate as a bar for drawing
up of a disciplinary proceeding against a
delinquent. It is well-settled principle of law
that yardstick and standard of proof in a
criminal case is different from the one in
disciplinary proceedings. While the standard
of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all
reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a
departmental proceeding is preponderance of
probabilities."

27. In Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Usha
Breco Ltd., (2008) 5 SCC 554, the Apex
Court laid down:

"33.
Before
a
departmental
proceeding, the standard of proof is not
that the misconduct must be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt but the
standard of proof is as to whether the test
of preponderance of probability has been
met. The approach of the Labour Court
appeared to be that the standard of proof
on the management was very high. When
both the parties had adduced evidence,
the Labour Court should have borne in
mind that the onus of proof loses all its
significance for all practical purpose."

28. In Samar Bahadur Singh Vs.
State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 94, the Apex
Court categorically held:

"7. Acquittal in the criminal case
shall have no bearing or relevance to the
facts of the departmental proceedings as
the standard of proof in both the cases are
totally different. In a criminal case, the
prosecution has to prove the criminal
case
beyond
all
reasonable
doubt
whereas in a departmental proceedings,
the department has to prove only
preponderance of probabilities. In the
present case, we find that the department
has been able to prove the case on the
standard
of
preponderance
of
probabilities. Therefore, the submissions
of the counsel appearing for the appellant
are found to be without any merit".

29. In the case of Karnataka SRTC
Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442,
Supreme Court has held as under:

"11.The question of considering
reinstatement after decision of acquittal
or discharge by a competent criminal
court arises only and only if the dismissal
from services was based on conviction by
the criminal court in view of the
provisions of Article 311(2)(b) [sic Article
311(2) second proviso (a)] of the
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2149
Constitution of India, or analogous
provisions
in
the
statutory
rules
applicable in a case. In a case where
enquiry has been held independently of
the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a
criminal court is of no help. The law is
otherwise. Even if a person stood
acquitted by a criminal court, domestic
enquiry can be held, the reason being that
the standard of proof required in a
domestic enquiry and that in a criminal
case are altogether different. In a
criminal case, standard of proof required
is beyond reasonable doubt while in a
domestic enquiry it is the preponderance
of probabilities that constitutes the test to
be applied."

30. The Apex Court in the case of
Inspector General of Police Vs. S.
Samuthiram,
(2013)
1
SCC
598
emphasised:

"6. As we have already indicated, in
the absence of any provision in the
service rules 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."

31. In SBI Vs. Narendra Kumar
Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740, the Apex
Court held as under:

"23. The inquiring authority has
examined each and every charge levelled
against the charged officer and the
documents produced by the presenting
officer and came to the conclusion that
most of the charges were proved. In a
departmental enquiry, the disciplinary
authority is expected to prove the charges
on preponderance of probability and not
on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reference may be made to the judgments
of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar
Bahadur and R.S. Saini v. State of
Punjab. The documents produced by the
Bank, which were not controverted by the
charged
officer,
support
all
the
allegations and charges levelled against
the charged officer. In a case, where the
charged officer had failed to inspect the
documents in respect of the allegations
raised by the Bank and not controverted,
it is always open to the inquiring
authority to accept the same".

32. In Commr. of Police Vs. Mehar
Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, the Apex Court
held as under:

"24. We find no substance in the
contention
that
by
cancelling
the
respondents candidature, the Screening
Committee
has
overreached
the
judgments of the criminal court. We are
2150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aware that the question of correlation
between
a
criminal
case
and
a
departmental enquiry does not directly
arise here, but, support can be drawn
from the principles laid down by this
Court in connection with it because the
issue involved is somewhat identical,
namely, whether to allow a person with
doubtful
integrity
to
work
in
the
department. While the standard of proof
in a criminal case is the proof beyond all
reasonable
doubt,
the
proof
in
a
departmental
proceeding
is
preponderance of probabilities. Quite
often criminal cases end in acquittal
because witnesses turn hostile. Such
acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An
acquittal based on benefit of doubt would
not stand on a par with a clean acquittal
on merit after a full fledged trial, where
there is no indication of the witnesses
being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of
India this Court has taken a view that
departmental proceedings can proceed
even though a person is acquitted when
the acquittal is other than honourable."

33. In SBI Vs. R. Periyasamy,
(2015) 3 SCC 101, the Apex Court held
as under:-

"11. It is interesting to note that the
learned Single Judge went to the extent of
observing
that
the
concept
of
preponderance of probabilities is alien to
domestic enquiries. On the contrary, it is
well known that the standard of proof that
must be employed in domestic enquiries is
in fact that of the preponderance of
probabilities. In Union of India v. Sardar
Bahadur,
this
Court
held
that
a
disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal
trial and thus, the standard of proof
required is that of preponderance of
probabilities and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. This view was upheld
by this Court in SBI v. Ramesh Dinkar
Punde. More recently, in SBI v. Narendra
Kumar Pandey, this Court observed that a
disciplinary authority is expected to prove
the charges levelled against a bank officer
on the preponderance of probabilities and
not on proof beyond reasonable doubt."

34. In the case of S. Bhaskar
Reddy (supra) after placing earlier
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of SBI Vs. R.
Periyasamy, (2015) 3 SCC 101, Hon'ble
the Apex Court held as under:-

"An acquittal based on benefit of
doubt would not stand on a par with a
clean acquittal on merits after a fullfledged trial, where there is no indication
of the witnesses being won over. The
long-standing view on this subject was
settled by this Court in R.P. Kapur Vs.
Union of India, whereby it was held that a
departmental proceeding can proceed
even though a person is acquitted when
the acquittal is other than honourable."

35. The judgment of Captain M.
Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank (supra)
were again considered by the Supreme
Court
in
Divisional
Controller,
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012)
1 SCC 442. In para-24, the Apex Court
considered the judgment of Captain M.
Paul Anthony(supra), and opined that this
judgment is not of universal application.
The judgment of G.M. Tank (supra) was
considered in para-23 of the judgment.
After considering this judgment and after
taking note of the basic judgment of R.P.
Kapoor (supra), the Apex Court held that
the departmental inquiry and criminal
case can run simultaneously despite the
2 All. State of U.P.& Ors. Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow & Anr.
2151
fact that the same are founded upon the
same factual matrix. It was held that facts,
charges and nature of evidence, etc.
involved in an individual case would
determine as to whether decision of
acquittal would have any bearing on the
findings recorded in the departmental
inquiry. This view is followed by the
Supreme Court in State of West Bengal
and others Vs. Sankar Ghosh- (2014) 3
SCC 610. In this case also, the Apex
Court explained the judgment of Captain
M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank (supra).
In para, 16, 17 and 18 of this judgment,
the Apex Court held that the proof
required in the departmental inquiry is
different than the proof required in a
criminal case. In Indian Overseas Bank,
Annasalai and another Vs. P. Ganesan
and others- (2008) 1 SCC 650, the Apex
Court reiterated the same principle. In Ajit
Kumar Nag Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, it was held as
under:-

"....The two proceedings criminal
and departmental are entirely different.
They operate in different fields and have
different objectives. Whereas the object of
criminal trial is to inflict appropriate
punishment on offender, the purpose of
enquiry proceedings is to deal with the
delinquent departmentally and to impose
penalty in accordance with service
Rules.....

36. In Nelson Motis Vs. Union of
India, (1994) 4 SCC 711, the Apex Court
held as under:

"5. So far the first point is
concerned,
namely
whether
the
disciplinary proceedings could have been
continued in the face of the acquittal of
the appellant in the criminal case, the
plea has no substance whatsoever and
does not merit a detailed consideration.
The nature and scope of a criminal case
are very different from those of a
departmental disciplinary proceeding and
an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot
conclude the departmental proceeding.
Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that
the acts which led to the initiation of the
departmental
disciplinary
proceeding
were not exactly the same which were the
subject matter of the criminal case."

37. In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn.
Vs. NOIDA, (2007) 10 SCC 385,
Supreme Court has held as under:

"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 acquittal in
the criminal proceedings the same does
not bar departmental proceedings. That
being so, the order of the State
Government deciding not to continue the
departmental
proceedings
is
clearly
untenable
and
is
quashed.
The
departmental
proceedings
shall
continue."

38. In the case of State (NCT of
Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9
SCC 685, the Apex Court has held as
under:

"25. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the exoneration in the departmental
proceeding ipso facto would not result in
the quashing of the criminal prosecution.
We hasten to add, however, that if the
prosecution against an accused is solely
based on a finding in a proceeding and
that finding is set aside by the superior
authority in the hierarchy, the very
foundation goes and the prosecution may
2152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be quashed. But that principle will not
apply in the case of the departmental
proceeding as the criminal trial and the
departmental proceeding are held by two
different entities. Further, they are not in
the same hierarchy."

39. Hon'be the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the case of R.K.
Solanki vs. Central Bank of India, 2018
Lab IC 1652 has held as under :-

9. The scope of departmental inquiry
and criminal cases have been considered
by the Apex Court in number of cases.
The said issue is no longer res integra. In
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India,
(1995) 6 SCC 749 the Supreme Court has
held as under:

"12. Judicial review is not an appeal
from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges
of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a
competent officer or whether rules of
natural
justice
are
complied
with.
Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry
has jurisdiction, power and authority to
reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But
that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or
evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary
proceeding.
When
the
authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom,
the disciplinary authority is entitled to
hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its
power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to reappreciate the
evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence.