Acquittal in criminal trial does not automatically mandate exoneration in departmental proceedings based on preponderance of probabilities.

The appellant, a police constable, was served with a departmental charge-sheet alleging he assaulted an unarmed fellow constable with a stick and misbehaved with a Treasury Officer while intoxicated.

Concurrent to the departmental inquiry, three FIRs were registered against him: one under the Prohibition Act, one for escaping from custody while at the pretext of answering a nature's call, and a third resulting in a conviction that was later overturned on appeal.

While the appellant was eventually acquitted in all criminal proceedings, the departmental inquiry found the charges proven.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority, and subsequently by a Single Judge of the High Court.

1. Whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution automatically exonerates a delinquent employee from departmental proceedings and the resulting punishment.

2. Whether the gravity of the misconduct (assaulting a colleague and public intoxication) justifies the punishment of removal from service for a member of the police force.

The Court applied the settled legal principle that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions operate in distinct fields with different standards of proof.

Departmental inquiries are governed by the principle of "preponderance of probabilities," whereas criminal trials require "proof beyond all reasonable doubt".

An acquittal in a criminal case does not mandate an exoneration in departmental proceedings.

The court emphasized the professional standards of conduct expected of the police force, where maintaining law and order is a fundamental duty.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge correctly distinguished between the standards of proof required for conviction versus departmental discipline.

It held that even if the criminal court found insufficient evidence for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the material before the inquiry officer was sufficient to establish guilt on a preponderance of probabilities.

Regarding the merits, the Court found that the appellant’s conduct—assaulting a fellow officer and intoxication—was antithetical to the duties of a police constable.

The act of escaping from custody further demonstrated that his continuance in the force was "undesirable".

The Court concluded that the disciplinary action was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, as a constable must be instrumental in maintaining, rather than violating, law and order.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order, finding no merit in the appeal; the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the punishment of removal from service was upheld.