Dhan Singh Karki vs Bureau Of Indian Standards ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1698 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondent-Bureau of Indian Standards dismissing the appellant from service after he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Consequent to a vigilance inquiry initiated and conducted and on submission of the report, a memorandum of charge was issued to the appellant. The allegation made was that while functioning as Assistant in the bids Central Laboratory, Sahibabad, the appellant had accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- in order to clear a sample. Some other allegations were also made. The Inquiry Officer appointed in the said departmental inquiry against the appellant submitted his report on 14th July, 1998, finding the appellant guilty of the charges. On perusal of the said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, as per prescribed procedure, issued order dated 6th June, 2000, dismissing the appellant from service and with a direction sanctioning compassionate allowance to the appellant equal to two-thirds of the pension and gratuity.

3. The said order was under challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions raised before him in depth and thereafter passed the order dated 28th August, 2006 holding that there was definitely enough material on record to find the appellant guilty of the charges. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge particularly referred to the statement of the appellant himself before the authorities, admitting receipt of the amount of Rs.5,000/-. On appreciation of the record it was held by the learned Single Judge that the inquiry conducted against the appellant cannot be faulted either procedurally or as being based on no material. It was also held that imposition of the penalty of removal from service with a direction to release 2/3 compassionate pension and gratuity cannot be termed as disproportionate or arbitrary.

4. The aforesaid finding and conclusions are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also the respondent BIS.

5. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions of the counsel for the appellant, we may also point out that there is a delay of about 308 days in preferring this appeal for which an application has also been filed praying for condensation of delay. On a perusal of the application we find that the delay has not been properly explained. The delay from 28th August, 2006, when the impugned order was passed, to 10th September, 2006, when for the first time the appellant had applied for certified copy, has not been explained at all. For the period thereafter the appellant has blamed Mr.Davender Kumar, Advocate, Tis Hazari. His address has not been given. It is not indicated whether any action was taken against Mr.Davender Kumar, Advocate. For some periods, there is no explanation at all. Though no sufficient cause is shown for the delay in preferring the appeal, but we have also looked into merits of the contentions raised.

6. It was contended before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no finding on record on the basis of which it can be said that the appellant is guilty of the charges. According to him the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and also by the learned Single Judge are perverse.

7. We are however unable to accept the aforesaid contentions for the simple reason that the appellant himself had made a statement that he had received Rs.5,000/- in cash, which was left at his residence by Mr.Tyagi for getting the sample passed. The statement dated 31st January, 1997 of the appellant has been extracted in the impugned judgment. A bare perusal of the same would make it crystal clear that the appellant had virtually admitted his guilt that Rs.5,000/- was paid and that he never mentioned the same to anybody as he was afraid. Standard of proof in departmental proceeding is different from standard of proof required for securing conviction in a criminal trial. In criminal cases, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceeding, misconduct has to be established, which could be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid admission of guilt by the appellant himself clinches the issue and no further evidence was necessary to pin down the appellant and establish the charges against him.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.