Delhi High Court
Vivekanand Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 March, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2208/2016
VIVEKANAND SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.B.B. Singh, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Arun Birbal & Mr. Sanjay Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 18.03.2016
The petitioner-Vivekanand Singh impugns order dated 12th August,
2015 passed in OA No. 3143/2012, whereby the aforesaid OA has been
dismissed.
2. The petitioner was charge sheeted on the following Articles of
charge:-
"Article-I
That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC during the
above said period had unauthorisedly sold prepaid lottery
tickets of Delhi Lotteries on credit to the local
dealers/agents in violation of the Scheme of Delhi Lotteries.
Article-II
That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC as on
17.6.1987, when his Branch was inspected by the CAO, had
to deposit a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- lakhs against which till
12.8.1987 he had remitted only Rs.79,500/-. The balance
amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was left to be deposited by Shri
Vivekanand Singh, LDC which tantamounts to
embezzlement of Govt. money.
Article-III
That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC during the
aforesaid period in the aforesaid office did not maintain or
render detailed account of sales of lottery tickets on credit.
The lottery accounts were kept pending despite issue of
repeated instructions from the office of Delhi Lotteries with
ulterior motive.
Shri V.N. Singh, LDC by his above acts of commission
and omission failed to maintain absolute integrity and
devotion to duty thereby contravening Rule 3 of CCS
(Conduct) Rules 1964 made application to the employees of
the Authority."
3. The disciplinary authority by order dated 27th July, 1990 imposed
penalty of dismissal. The Appellate Authority by order dated 15th January,
1991 upheld the findings and penalty of dismissal.
3.1 The two orders were challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 990/1992
before the Delhi High Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 9th
February, 1996 as the appellate authority was directed to pass a speaking
order recording reasons for its decision.
3.2 In compliance, the appellate authority passed a fresh order dated 3rd
May, 1996 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In other words, the order of
dismissal was sustained.
4. The petitioner did not challenge and question this order dated 3 rd May,
1996. The petitioner accepted the same.
5. The petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 409 and 411 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No. 683/1988 and was convicted by the
judgment of the trial court dated 22nd October, 2009. However, the
Additional Sessions Judge allowed his appeal and the conviction and
sentence were set aside vide judgment dated 5th July, 2010.
6. The petitioner, on acquittal in the criminal appeal, started making
representations seeking reinstatement. The first representation was made on
26th August, 2010. Thereafter, on 23rd November, 2011, the petitioner had
sent a legal notice to which a reply dated 11 th January, 2012 was received
refusing to reinstate the petitioner. In January, 2012, the petitioner filed the
aforesaid OA No. 3143/2012, which as noticed above, by the impugned
order dated 12th August, 2015 has been dismissed.
7. In our opinion, the tribunal has rightly drawn a distinction between
the criminal proceedings and the articles of charge on which the petitioner
had faced disciplinary proceedings. Criminal proceedings were separate
and distinct. The judgment in the criminal proceedings would depend upon
evidence led and produced. It would also depend upon whether there was
violation of the provisions of Section 409 or 411 IPC. Further, in criminal
proceedings the principle of benefit of doubt applies, whereas in
departmental proceedings the standard of proof required is different as they
are decided on the principle of preponderance of probability. The tribunal in
the impugned judgment has rightly referred to the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Nelsom Motis versus Union of India and Another, AIR 1992 SC
1981, State of Karnataka and Another versus T. Venkataramanappa,
(1996) 6 SCC 455, State of Karnataka and Another versus T.
Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455, State of Andhra Pradesh versus K.
Allabaksh, (2000) 10 SCC 177 and Ajit Kumar Nag versus General
Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2005) 7 SCC 764 wherein
it has been held that acquittal in a criminal case need not be a bar to the
departmental enquiry, for in the criminal trial the standard of proof is stricter
and in disciplinary proceedings what is required to be proved and shown is
misconduct and the standard required is preponderance of probability.
Acquittal in a criminal case cannot be construed as clear exoneration from
departmental proceedings
8. Evidence was led on the aforesaid articles of charge in the disciplinary
proceedings. Penalty of dismissal was imposed by the disciplinary authority
vide order dated 27th July, 1990. The petitioner had filed an appeal and in
terms of the order passed by the High Court a fresh order was passed by the
appellate authority on 3rd May, 1996. The appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order of dismissal was dismissed and the penalty sustained. As
noticed above, the petitioner accepted the said order and did not challenge
the same by filing a writ petition.
The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MARCH 18, 2016
VKR
