CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Pardeep Kumar Pepsu Road Transport Corporation & others CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of (Annexure P been terminated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P termination has been rejected. for directing the respondents consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequent upon his Judicial Magistrat 2) in case FIR No. District Bathinda, under Section 2026 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pardeep Kumar Versus Road Transport Corporation & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, terminated from the services and for 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby his representation against the order of has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequent upon his honourable acquittal Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P in case FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda, under Section 409 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents NAMIT KUMAR invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2, vide which the petitioner has for setting aside the order dated , whereby his representation against the order of Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages by the Court of learned Chief vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P- 05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 29.08.2017 the petitioner has setting aside the order dated , whereby his representation against the order of has been sought to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages Chief - 05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) 2. petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444 dated 02.12.2015. registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner the regular departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256 Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner, and a No.1 passed the impugned order dated terminating the services of the Corporation payable to the petitioner. criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a representation d 24.03.2025 (Annexure P preferred the instant 3. his termination reference was without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda 2026 (O&M) (2) Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444/- and he was suspended vide order dated 02.12.2015. Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256 Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the etitioner, and after considering the entire material on record, No.1 passed the impugned order dated terminating the services of the petitioner, and financial loss occurred to the Corporation was to be recovered from the benefits, grat payable to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved against the same, the preferred the instant petition. The petitioner had also raised an industrial dispute his termination by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said was withdrawn by the petitioner without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda reads as under: Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was suspended vide order Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station inda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner, and upon the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256/-. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the fter considering the entire material on record, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) , and financial loss occurred to the to be recovered from the benefits, gratuity and leaves Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a ated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated 4). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute impugning by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was suspended vide order Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station inda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet and upon the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report . Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the espondent 1) , and financial loss occurred to the uity and leaves Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the 2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a ated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated etitioner has impugning by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said , without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) 4. criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of allegations, and the petitioner has case, therefore, submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, PRTC, Patiala, whereas, the appointing is the General Manager, PRTC 5. appearance on behalf of petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. 2026 (O&M) (3) “Pardeep Kumar Conductor Vs. Transport and others Ref no. 01/2025 Present: Sh. Harvilas Singh A.R. along with workman. Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management /respondent no. 1 to 3. Sh. Harvilas Singh has put in appearance on beha Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement that he does not want to proceed further with the present reference due to technical effect. In view of the statement suffered by the wo Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the record room. Dated: 10.04.2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of and the petitioner has already therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, PRTC, Patiala, whereas, the appointing/punishing is the General Manager, PRTC, Patiala. On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. mar Conductor Vs. The Chairman Pepsu Road Sh. Harvilas Singh A.R. along with workman. Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management /respondent no. 1 to 3. Sh. Harvilas Singh has put in appearance on behalf of Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement that he does not want to proceed further with the present reference due to technical effect. In view of the statement suffered by the workman Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the Sd/-10.04.2026 (Kulbhushan Kumar) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of already been acquitted in the criminal he is entitled to be reinstated into service. Furthermore, he submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, /punishing authority of the petitioner On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in espondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management lf of Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement that he does not want to proceed further with the present rkman Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of been acquitted in the criminal Furthermore, he submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, etitioner On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in espondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) He submits that the petitioner had pref against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the order dated 22.05.2018 disclosed in the was not honourably Chief Judicial Magistrate, merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition has been filed after an controvert the contention of termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since the said officers were charge Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted together by th 6. the record. 7. a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, 2026 (O&M) (4) He submits that the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to etitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the order dated 22.05.2018, rejecting the appeal of the disclosed in the petition. Furthermore, he has submitted that the honourably acquitted, rather a perusal of the judg Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of nine years. controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since the said officers were charge-sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted together by the Chairman. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused The facts are not in dispute that the a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, erred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to etitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has been etition. Furthermore, he has submitted that the petitioner , rather a perusal of the judgment passed by the Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by way of Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition inordinate delay of nine years. Moreover, to learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not only the petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, erred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to etitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the etitioner has been etitioner ment passed by the Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was er by way of ide order dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition o petitioner that the termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is only the petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused etitioner was appointed as a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) allegations regarding both departmental proceedings and criminal issuance of charge sheet dated 19.12.2016, departmental enquiry wherein the charges were prove notice dated 11.05.2017 from service against the aforesaid order, the 04.10.2017, and afte 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, suppression, or misrepresentatio process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the administration of justice relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the Court with utmost ca substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the 2026 (O&M) (5) allegations regarding misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444 both departmental proceedings and criminal issuance of charge sheet dated 19.12.2016, departmental enquiry wherein the charges were prove notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner from service, vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 04.10.2017, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing on 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from g the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, suppression, or misrepresentation of such facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the administration of justice, but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the Court with utmost candour and bonafides is not a mere formality substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444/- led to initiation of both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. Thereafter, after which was followed by regular departmental enquiry wherein the charges were proved and a show cause petitioner and he was terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved etitioner had preferred an appeal dated r affording an opportunity of personal hearing on 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge-sheet, inquiry report and show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from It is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, n of such facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not come with clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the ndour and bonafides is not a mere formality, but a substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the led to initiation of Thereafter, after regular a show cause was terminated 1). Aggrieved etitioner had preferred an appeal dated r affording an opportunity of personal hearing on 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal heet, inquiry report and show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from It is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, n of such facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its come with clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the but a substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) judgments in 799, Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, Singh Vs. The Haryana State, 8. petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are governed by different standards of proof. Thus, case does not proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. Moreover, in the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted. 9. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd observations In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The 2026 (O&M) (6) judgments in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, Singh Vs. The Haryana State, 2026 NCPHHC 18298 So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to be reinstated in service settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are governed by different standards of proof. Thus, case does not ipso facto invalidate the findings of the departmental proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted. Reliance in this regard may be made to a of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag an Oil Corporation Ltd., 2005 (7) SCC 764 have been made: “12. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings - criminal and departmental different. They operate in different fields and have different Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (3) SCT 115 and Lehna 2026 NCPHHC 18298. So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to be reinstated in service is concerned, it is a well settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are governed by different standards of proof. Thus, later acquittal in a criminal invalidate the findings of the departmental proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted. Reliance in this regard may be made to a Three Judge Bench Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. G.M. (P.J.) 2005 (7) SCC 764, wherein following As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a iminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT Lehna So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, is a well settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are acquittal in a criminal invalidate the findings of the departmental proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended Three Judge Bench . G.M. (P.J.) following As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. Acquittal by a iminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to 2026 (O&M) (7) objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to ord different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and un prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a ng statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the sis of 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to tion of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.” Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a ng statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The er a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal less the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to tion of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) 10. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Banerjee 2026 (O&M) (8) Further reliance in this regard may be placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India Kumar Banerjee, 2025 INSC 149, wherein it has been observed as under: “34. In our considered view, grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis- conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in the Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618 wherein this Court held as follows: "15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some releva authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is Further reliance in this regard may be placed on a judgment of rports Authority of India Vs. Pradip it has been observed as under: In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required -à-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the ent is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In this regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in . Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC wherein this Court held as follows: - . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is a judgment of . Pradip the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the ent is limited and it is required to prove its case In this regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in . Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on nt materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) 11. terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches, and anyone who claims ri rights within a reasonable period of time. 12. position, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach the Court with clean hands and has withheld adjudication of the present petition. A person, who or attempts to mislead the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Rs.25,000/- within a period of 09.07.2026 Vimal 2026 (O&M) (9) guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches, and anyone who claims rights must be vigilant and must enforce rights within a reasonable period of time. In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach the Court with clean hands and has withheld adjudication of the present petition. A person, who or attempts to mislead the Court, is not entitled to invoke under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of to be deposited with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this order. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. . . ."” Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereas the petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and ghts must be vigilant and must enforce such In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach the Court with clean hands and has withheld material facts for proper adjudication of the present petition. A person, who suppresses material facts s not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, the date of passing of this order. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been 1), whereas the petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and such In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach for proper facts jurisdiction Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of , VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.21 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.