Departmental proceedings can continue despite criminal acquittal, as standards of proof differ.

The applicant, Awadh Ram Patle, was a Post Master (Dakpal) who faced a departmental enquiry and a criminal case in 2000 due to a complaint of fund embezzlement

He was placed on 'put off' duty on January 22, 2001, and subsequently a departmental enquiry was instituted, with a charge-sheet filed as Annexure A-2

Mr. B.R. Patel, the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Bilaspur, conducted the faulty enquiry and prepared a report on August 29, 2002

The applicant submitted his reply to the report on October 28, 2002, but his representations were not considered, leading to his termination from service via order dated December 11, 2002 (Annexure A-3)

His appeal to the Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, was rejected on February 3, 2004 (Annexure A-4)

Separately, the criminal case against the applicant under Sections 409 & 467 of the IPC concluded on August 26, 2016, with his acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa (Annexure A/5)

Following his acquittal, the applicant filed a revision petition before the Member (Personnel) Postal Service Board, Government of India, on February 23, 2017, which remained undecided

He then filed O.A. No. 203/00186/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the decision of his revision application within 60 days on February 23, 2018 (Annexure A/6)

The respondents then directed the applicant to file a fresh revision with the Chief Post Master General, Raipur Circle, Chhattisgarh, on March 22, 2018 (Annexure A/7)

This fresh revision was rejected by the impugned order dated March 15, 2019 (Annexure A/1), leading to the present Original Application

The respondents contended that the charges were proved in the departmental inquiry based on documents and evidence, and the disciplinary authority found the applicant guilty, dismissing him

The revisionary authority also upheld the dismissal, stating the charges were adequately proved by available records

Whether the order dated March 15, 2019, and the dismissal order dated December 11, 2002, should be quashed

Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, including arrears of salary

Whether the applicant's acquittal in the criminal case overrides the findings of the departmental enquiry

The court primarily applied Rule 10 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rule 1964 and Rule 19 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 concerning disciplinary proceedings and revisionary powers

It further relied on the settled principle that departmental proceedings and criminal trials operate on different footings, with distinct standards of proof: 'preponderance of probability' for departmental inquiries versus 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases, as established in precedents like *D.Paul V Nawab Ali Akhtar, 2001 (10) SCC 501*, *Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981*, and *Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (P.J.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2005 SCC 4217*

The court found that the disciplinary process, including the inquiry and the imposition of punishment, followed the prescribed rules

The inquiry officer proved the charges, and the revisionary authority concluded that sufficient documentary evidence existed to prove the misappropriation of government funds by the applicant

Despite the applicant's acquittal in the criminal case, the court upheld the principle that departmental proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, requiring only a 'preponderance of probability' for proof, as opposed to 'beyond doubt' in criminal cases

The criminal acquittal was noted to be based on the investigating agency's inability to get documents verified by witnesses, which is a different standard than the departmental inquiry

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that departmental proceedings can proceed independently and that departmental punishment can be imposed even with a criminal acquittal if the evidence satisfies the departmental standard

The court found no merit in the applicant's case, concluding that the disciplinary authority and revisionary authority had properly followed due procedure and established the charges against the applicant based on the available records and departmental standards of proof

The applicant's acquittal in the criminal case did not negate the findings of the departmental inquiry

Consequently, the prayer for quashing the dismissal order and for reinstatement with consequential benefits was rejected