The Hero Kalan Coop. & ANR. v. The Presiding Officer & ANR.
"#
!$%&%"'
( !)*+ *,
-
.!
!*"
/ 0 '
""1!* %2!
3*%$+0 +* 0 4!*2%$!
4"$%! , 5 6 '6 '" .!*
! % %"'!*& 8!*&+& .!
*!&%6%'3
##%$!*- 5 )"+* "+* -
.%'6 '6 '" .!* !&1"'6!' & ( 9 5 7 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 7
5
'
,
/.
,
,
#1$ ( 2 /'
-
)
" /. &
" #1$ ( & .'
-,3 , 4%) ! . ! /
+
7 /7
)
%
,
-, % %
% 4%)
+ % -,
%)
" 8 (-
9
)
'
,) -)
: ;
,
%
%(, %
& -,
, (%
% -,
, (
,
%)
" 8 (-
3 %
+ & ) ,) -) ,
!
%
%
(
"
4%) & %
" /.
) & 4%) 4%) % 4%)
%,) ,
#1$ ( 2 /' .
)
7 /7
, $ & -,
<% %
( ) %
(
(
& -,3 ,
4% 7 4%
, <%
) & ( % 4%
%(4%
% ,
/
9 3( % ,
!
"
%
- ,) ,
4%
- )
)
<%, %& "12. The second ground, which has weighed with the High Court, is equally specious. A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee has committed a breach of the service rules. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has adverted to Circular Order No.16/85, which inter alia imposed the following obligation upon the members of the CRPF:
"(c) strict fire discipline should be enforced by supervisory staff at all levels. In other words, loaded, and cocked weapons should not be kept by the troops while in barracks/non operational places.
Severe disciplinary action must be taken against the defaulters." The fact that the first respondent was acquitted in the course of the criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, in our view, has drawn an erroneous inference from the decision of this Court in Capt M Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd2. The High Court adverted to the following principle of law laid down in the above judgment:
"...While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance."
4% =
(()3
4% () ( %(
1 -
() ( %(
)
<% %
3
' % ( ) <% ,) (
)
% ( ) ,
5%
,
%
>
( + + %
> ,) %
( () , %
- ,
%)
" 8 (-
: ? )
%, %
( % % )
)
!
( ,
"
, ) , %
)
7&@
% %
-,
. + , %
)
!)*+ *,
-
4 4 4 harsha
-2 B (