Baldev Raj Berry v. Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana And ORS
Date of Decision: 04.07.2019 Baldev Raj Berry .....Appellant versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others .....Respondents !
"# "
$ " !
"
$ Present :
Mr. G.K.Dulat, Advocate*Legal Aid counsel, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondents. **** # "
$ " %&' ( )* Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 184 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. This intra*court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the petitioner*appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by him challenging the order of dismissal from service. 2.
Facts required to be noticed for proper adjudication of the controversy in brief can be summarized as under:* The appellant who was working as cashier in the office of Controller of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, was issued charge* sheets dated 11.01.2002, 20.09.2002 and 12.12.2002 levelling charges of
embezzlement and serious financial irregularities. Two Enquiry Officers were appointed to conduct regular departmental enquiry against him separately into the allegations leveled against him in the two charge*sheets. Both the Enquiry Officers submitted their separate reports dated 03.04.2003 and 11.06.2003 respectively holding the petitioner*appellant guilty of the charges. Thereafter a notice dated 10.12.2003 was issued requiring the appellant to show cause as to why he may not be terminated from service on account of grave financial irregularities and why an amount of Rs.14,72,402.32 be not recovered from him. The appellant*petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter Vice Chancellor of the University directed termination of his services beside recovery of the amount of Rs.14,72,402.32. The order was communicated to the appellant on 15.03.2004.
3.
The termination order passed by the Vice Chancellor was subject matter of challenge by way of an appeal before the Board of Management. The Appellate Authority kept the appeal pending because of the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant*petitioner. During this period the appellant*petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the said inaction he filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 14017 of 2008 which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2009 directing the respondents to put up the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority with a further direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction the appeal filed by the appellant came to be considered by the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2010. After acquittal in the criminal case vide order dated 15.09.2004 upheld in appeal
vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2016, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the termination order dated 15.03.2004 and the Appellate order dated 23.02.2010. A further relief of mandamus was claimed to command the respondents to make payment of back wages from the date of termination to the date of superannuation together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
4.
The challenge was mainly on the ground that the termination order and the Appellate order are rendered illegal since the appellant* petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case. Learned Single Judge vide judgment and order impugned in the appeal dismissed the writ petition.
5.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the appellant* petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case which order has been upheld in appeal, thus the departmental proceedings are liable to be quashed and he is entitled to be reinstated back.
6.
We have considered the arguments advanced and perused the record.
7.
It is well settled proposition of law that the nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from a departmental disciplinary proceedings and the order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
8.
In the case of
! " # "$%&Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the scope of departmental proceedings viz.a.viz. criminal prosecution has observed as under:*
! 9.
In the case of '"& ("
!)
**+++++&the Apex Court observed as under:* " #
".
10.
In an identical matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ,, " -&./
"" ' **% %+&wherein the argument that since the respondent was discharged in
a criminal case, the order of punishment was not sustainable was repelled and it was observed as under:* "$%
! 11.
The view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of
1 ,"'
#"'"& 2& 3 "" 4 5 "**+%&by observing as under:* &
#
&
'
'
# ( #
"
!
" !&
) *
# (
12.
The standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case is distinct and different from that required in departmental proceedings. In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings the preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. Thus the acquittal in a criminal case cannot be made a basis for either dropping the departmental proceedings or setting aside the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent in the said proceedings.
13.
In view of the law and facts discussed hereinabove, we see no ground to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appeal is thus devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
!"#$%& Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No