Acquittal in Criminal Trial Based on Benefit of Doubt Does Not Preclude Punishment in Departmental Proceeding

The petitioner, a police officer, was accused of intercepting two individuals carrying 12 kgs of silver, assaulting them, and forcibly seizing 4 kgs of silver on 4.9.2019

Consequently, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 498 of 2019 was registered, and the silver was recovered from two other police personnel

While the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial on 22.2.2021 as he was given the "benefit of doubt"

a parallel departmental proceeding was initiated

The enquiry officer found the charges proved, describing the petitioner’s actions as "moral turpitude"

On 18.5.2021, the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, passed an order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, deducting 50% of the petitioner’s pension and withholding additional payments for the suspension period

The petitioner challenged this order primarily on the grounds of acquittal in the criminal case and violation of natural justice

1. Whether an acquittal in a criminal case based on "benefit of doubt" mandates the exoneration of a delinquent employee in a departmental proceeding based on the same facts.

2. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by procedural irregularities or violation of the principles of natural justice.

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which empowers the government to withhold or withdraw pension in cases of proven misconduct or guilt

It emphasized the established legal principle that the standard of proof in criminal trials—proof beyond reasonable doubt—is distinct from the standard in departmental proceedings, which is the preponderance of probability

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial not because he was found innocent, but because he was granted the "benefit of doubt," such an acquittal does not automatically override a departmental finding of guilt

Upon reviewing the enquiry report, the court observed that the departmental charges—including the assault and seizure of silver—were supported by documentary evidence (FIR, exhibits) and testimonies of four witnesses

Regarding natural justice, the court noted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and file his defence but failed to do so, repeatedly seeking adjournments instead

Therefore, the court found the 'preponderance of probability' to be sufficiently established, as the material facts of the occurrence and the petitioner's subsequent custody were proved during the enquiry

The court found no merit in the writ application and dismissed it, upholding the order dated 18.5.2021 directing a 50% deduction in the petitioner’s pension