(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. This petition is preferred to challenge order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench at Ahmedabad in Original Application No.350 of 2011, dated 16.12.2011.
2. The question that is required to be addressed by us, if we entertain this petition, would be whether the departmental proceedings are required to be dropped once the delinquent, who is also facing criminal charges, is acquitted by the Criminal Court of the charges levelled against him. In the instant case, the petitioner was a delinquent who was proceeded departmentally and was also prosecuted. For whatever reasons, the departmental proceedings remained in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial. At the end of the criminal trial, the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, a decision was taken by the competent authority to drop the departmental proceedings. That order was passed on 2.6.2011, by Sr. DEN (PRCL), Bhavnagar-para. The said order was taken by the Divisional Railway Manager, Bhavnagar in Suo Motu Revision and an order was passed on 30.9.2011, revising the decision to drop the proceedings and remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for inquiry and passing of appropriate orders after completion of DAR inquiry.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Trivedi submitted that the petitioner was honourably acquitted and the acquittal was not given on any technical ground. He also submitted that the respondent authorities did not proceed with the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial and now that trial has resulted into acquittal, a stand is sought to be taken of proceeding further with the departmental inquiry, which is not proper and permissible. This order of the Tribunal confirming such view of the respondent authorities is therefore, bad in law and the petition may, therefore, be entertained.
4. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in observing that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are two independent proceedings and operate in different regard, although the cause for initiation may be the same. The parameters for taking the decision in these proceedings would also differ. It is also a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal proceeding will have no bearing on the departmental proceedings initiated against delinquent/ employee for the same act and the decision would be taken after assessing the material on principle of preponderance of probabilities. Whereas, in the criminal proceedings, standard proof is expected to be of a strict nature.
5. In our view, therefore, no error can be said to have been committed by the Tribunal calling any interference at our hands in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition must fail and hence, the same stands dismissed.
(A.L.
DAVE, J.) (C.L. SONI, J.) omkar Top