Ashok Kumar Nonia vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4136 Jhar

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(S). No. 1534 of 2020
                                          ----------

              Ashok Kumar Nonia                         ......... Petitioner.
                                                Versus

1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director.

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad.

3. The Director (Personnel), M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad.

4. The General Manager, W.J. Area Moonidih, P.O. Moonidih, P.S. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad.

5. The Project Officer, Moonidih Coal Washery, P.o. Moonidih, P.S. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad.

                                                     ..........         Respondents.
                                     ----------

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

-----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate

-----------

C.A.V. on 26.08.2021 Pronounced on 02.11.2021

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties.

Prayer:

2. In the instant case, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 07.04.2020, whereby the petitioner's prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case being R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2014(D) has been rejected by the respondents by stating that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-BCCL is entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry.

Factual Matrix:

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was a Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for

short "M/s. BCCL"). While he was discharging his duties, a written complaint was made to the CBI, Dhanbad on 08.09.2014 by one Niranjan Mahto, a fitter in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL alleging that the petitioner has made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for preparing his arrear bill of Rs.25,000/-. Based on the above complaint, the CBI Dhanbad lodged an FIR being R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2014(D) on 08.09.2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. Thereafter, the CBI Dhanbad constituted a trap team and the petitioner was trapped and arrested on 09.09.2014. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 07.11.2014 under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly criminal trial commenced against the petitioner. After submission of charge-sheet in the criminal case, the respondent- BCCL on the departmental side issued a memorandum of charge on 22.04.2015 and the charges contained therein were exactly the same to the charges contained in the charge-sheet of pending criminal case. The departmental proceeding culminated in an order dated 20.04.2017 by which the respondent-BCCL imposed a penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the respondent-BCCL.

On the other hand, after passing of the dismissal order in the departmental proceeding, the criminal trial against the petitioner concluded in his acquittal from the charges by a detailed judgment dated 29.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. In view of his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent-BCCL for reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits but the same was rejected on 07.04.2020 by stating that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-BCCL is entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry.

The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 07.04.2020 whereby his prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits has been rejected by the respondent-BCCL.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

4. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the petitioner has been dismissed from his service pursuant to a departmental proceeding on the alleged charge of making illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel submits that the criminal case which was initiated prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding, on the same set of charge, has culminated into honorable acquittal of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel submits that the grounds taken by the respondent-BCCL in their counter-affidavit is diametrically opposite to the records of the case. The respondents in their counter- affidavit have primarily stated that the evidences led before the departmental proceeding by the employer i.e. oral and documentary are not the same and similar set of evidence to that in the criminal proceedings. Further, the respondents have stated that the charges in the criminal proceeding are different from the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel in this regards refers to article of charge dated 22.04.2015 in departmental proceeding as well as the charge-sheet dated 02.11.2014 filed in criminal proceeding, which reads as under:

Departmental Proceeding Criminal Proceeding That Sri Ashok Kumar Nonia, Spl. Investigation has established that Grade Clerk while functioning as Bill accused Shri Ashok Kumar Nonia Clerk, Moonidih Coal Washery during while working as Special Grade Clerk- 2014 committed grave misconduct as cum-Bill Clerk, Moonidih Coal much as demanded and accepted bribe Washery BCCL, Dhanbad demanded of Rs.500/- from Shri Niranjan Mahto and accepted an illegal gratification of working as fitter at Moonidih Coal Rs.500/- from the complainant Shri Washery for preparation of arrears bill Niranjan Mahto as a motive for consequent upon his promotion from preparing pending arrear bill in respect Cat-IV to Cat-V with effect from of the complainant consequent upon 01.01.2008. Thus, by the above act Shri his promotion from Cat.-IV to Cat.-V Ashok Kumar Nonia failed to maintain w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and the said tainted absolute integrity and devotion to duty bribe amount was recovered from the and committed misconduct under Clause conscious possession of the accused. 26.1.13 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable on the workmen of BCCL.

5. Learned counsel submits that the above comparative chart unequivocally shows that the article of charge in the departmental proceeding and the charge in the criminal proceeding were exactly the same and therefore, the stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that charges in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding were different, stands falsified on perusal of the records.

6. Learned counsel further argues that the stand of the respondent that oral evidence in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceedings were different, also stands falsified from perusal of the records. Learned counsel submits that from the Enquiry Report dated 31.01.2017 of the Departmental Proceeding, it transpires that there were 4 Management Witnesses who were examined and cross-examined and from the detailed judgment dated 29.02.2020, passed in R.C. Case, it transpires that in the criminal proceeding there were altogether 14 prosecution witnesses and amongst these 14 prosecution witnesses, all the 4 management witnesses were included who were examined and cross-examined. Learned counsel further argues that the stand of the respondents that documentary evidences in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceedings were different, also stands falsified on perusal of the records. From perusal of the records it is apparent that all the 9 management exhibits in the departmental proceeding were either derived from the criminal case or were also an exhibit in the criminal case.

7. Learned counsel submits that respondents have simply made a bald statement that charges are different, oral and documentary evidence are also different but this statement of the respondents does not have legs to stand when scrutinized vis-à-vis the records of the case. Learned counsel submits that from the statements made above it can be easily deciphered that not only the charges in the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding were exactly the same, but, the evidences led both oral and documentary in both the proceedings were also the same and since, the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he is entitled for reinstatement into the service with all consequential benefits.

8. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments:

(I) Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.

[(1999) 3 SCC 679];

(II) G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 446]; (III) Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598]; & (IV) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. represented by Managing Director (Administration and HR) Vs. C. Nagaraju & Anr. [(2019) 10 SCC 367].

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL:

9. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner being a workman of respondent-BCCL, he has an alternative remedy of raising an Individual/ Industrial Dispute under Section 2A/10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the order of dismissal from service. Learned counsel submits that in case of UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmchari Sangh [(2004) 4 SCC 268], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that resort to writ jurisdiction is not permissible and the workman is to exhaust alternative remedy. Learned counsel further argues that in course of cross- examination, Niranjan Mahto (MW-1) has stated that the delinquent workman demanded bribe from him. Further, Atul Mishra (MW-2) in his evidence has deposed that he was present at the place of occurrence and he was a witness of the incident such as recovery and seizure memorandum. Learned counsel further argues that Ram Pratap Singh (MW-3) has deposed that at the time of giving bribe he was present at the door on the Varendah and he has seen from his own eyes the incident of giving and taking of bribe of Rs.500/-. Mr. Lalit Kumar Mishra, Inspector, CBI (MW-4) deposed that petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.500/- from Niranjan Mahto. Learned counsel submits that based on these evidences on record, charges have been found to be proved and order of dismissal has

been passed. There is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Even acquittal in a criminal case may result in dismissal on principle of preponderance of probability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft no punishment other than dismissal is appropriate. Learned counsel further argues that apart from the charge of accepting bribe, the charge of not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion towards duty has also been levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, which cannot be proved in the criminal case.

10. Learned counsel further argues that acquittal in a criminal case does not render the order of dismissal illegal and bad. Where criminal case and the department proceeding are based on same set of facts, same set of evidence and the criminal case ends in honorable acquittal, matter can be reconsidered. Learned counsel further argues that the charges in the departmental proceeding are different, evidences are also not the same, criminal case has not ended in honorable acquittal rather, the acquittal is based on benefit of doubt. Further, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and therefore no reasons are to be assigned.

11. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. [(2019) 7 SCC 797];

(ii) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.

Nagaraju (supra);

(iii) Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. IOC Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764];

(iv) Pandiyan Roadways Vs. N. Balakrishnan [(2007) 9 SCC 755];

(v) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Anr. [(2016) 9 SCC 491];

(vi) Divisional Controller KSRTC Vs. MG Vittal Rao [(2012) 1 SCC 442];

(vii) Dy. I.G. of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598]; &

(viii) Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. [(2021) 3 SCC 806].

Findings of the Court:

12. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts and reasons:

(I) There can be no automatic reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case (II) In the instant case from the judgment of the criminal case nowhere it is found that employee has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case.

(III) From para-39 of the judgment rendered in R.C. Case No. 10(A)/ 2014-D, it can comfortably be inferred that petitioner was acquitted giving benefits of doubt. Para-39 of the said judgment reads as under:

"39. I thus find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges u/s 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, against the accused namely, Ashok Kumar Noniya and giving the benefit of doubt he is acquitted from the said charges.

(IV) The criminal case is registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-BCCL are entirely different from each other and hence, the judgment of criminal case is not binding on the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent- BCCL against the petitioner.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narinder Mohan Arya v., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 713, has held as under:

"39. Under certain circumstances, a decision of a civil court is also binding upon the criminal court although, converse is not true. (See Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India26.) However, it is also true that the standard of proof in a criminal case and civil case is different.

40. We may notice that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.20, this Court observed:

'35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.'

41. We may not be understood to have laid down a law that in all such circumstances the decision of the civil court or the criminal court would be binding on the disciplinary authorities as this Court in a large number of decisions points out that the same would depend upon other factors as well. See e.g. Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh27 and Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani28. Each case is, therefore, required to be considered on its own facts."

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.I.G. of Police & Anr.

Vs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598, has held as under:

24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal6. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by

way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.

27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.

14. From the charge-sheet it appears that main charges against the petitioner are, (i) integrity; and (ii) devotion towards duty, which amounts to gross-misconduct and the same cannot be proved in the criminal case and it can only be proved in a departmental proceeding. As such, because of the grave misconduct arising due to doubtful integrity and lack in devotion towards duty by the petitioner, rightly, the order of dismissal has been issued which warrants no interference even if the petitioner has been given benefits of doubt acquitting him in the criminal case.

15. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar that since no reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside, is not acceptable to this Court in

view of the settled principle of law that where Disciplinary Authority accepts findings of Enquiry Officer and passes order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment since punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report.

This view is spelt-out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors., reported in (2021) 3 SCC

806.

16. Further, from perusal of the evidences of MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 adduced before the Enquiry Officer, very comfortably it can be said that the charges against the petitioner are based on the evidences brought-up by MW-1, Niranjan Mahto, MW-2, Atul Mishra, MW-3, Ram Pratap Singh and MW-4, Lalit Kumar Mishra, who had clearly deposed before the Enquiry Officer that at the time of trap, they were present at the place of occurrence and were witnesses of the incident such as recovery and seizure memorandum.

17. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 and in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 are of no help to him on the ground that from perusal of the evidences led in the departmental enquiry and that of the criminal case, they are not same and similar and as such, petitioner cannot get any help from the same. It is clear-cut case of benefit of doubt and not a case of honorable acquittal.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh, reported in JT 2020 (10) SC 207, has held under as under:

"33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the judge

wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy -

deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognized it for long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges' craft is in vain.

J. The effect of an acquittal

34. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the

administration of criminal justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and of the star witness resiling from his statements. Our precedents indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 24 this Court held:

"37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge."

(emphasis supplied)

In Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that unless the accused has an "honorable acquittal" in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an "honourable acquittal". Noticing this, the Court observed:

"Honourable acquittal"

24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 :

(1994) 26 ATC 619]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by

the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] which is as follows:

(Raghava case [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] , SLR p.

47, para 8)

8. ... 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted.

Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term "honourably acquitted".'" (Robert Stuart case [ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168], ILR pp. 188-89)

26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person

guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."

(emphasis added)"

18. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the instant writ application merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal/-