1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction of the government to hold a departmental inquiry could rightly be interfered with by the tribunal.
4. As it appears, a criminal prosecution was launched against the delinquent respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of a trap that was laid. The prosecution case was that the respondent demanded bribe, received the bribe and that money was seized from his possession. The learned special judge accepted the fact that the accused respondent accepted the money, but came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish whether there was any earlier demand on the part of the accused and whether the money that was accepted by the accused was as a bribe for showing any favour to the complainant or not. It is on this conclusion the accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The departmental proceedings were thereafter initiated and the tribunal, being of the view that the departmental proceeding is on the self-same charges, quashed the departmental proceedings. The government came up in a writ petition to the High Court and the High Court having refused to interfere with the order of the tribunal the present appeal has been preferred.
5. The question for consideration is, whether a departmental proceeding could be initiated after acquittal in the criminal proceeding and; whether Rule 12 of the Delhi police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short "the Rules") would stand as a bar of initiation of such a proceeding.
6. Departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding can run simultaneously and departmental proceeding can also be initiated even after acquittal in a criminal proceeding particularly when the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is completely different from the standard of proof that is required to prove the delinquency of a government servant in a departmental proceeding, the former being one of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the latter being one of preponderance of probability.
7. That apart, the second part of Rule 12 of the rules, unequivocally indicates that a departmental proceeding could be initiated if in the opinion of the court, the prosecution witnesses are found to be won over. In the case in hand, the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution in the criminal proceeding on account of which the public prosecutor cross-examined them and therefore, in such a case, in terms of Rule 12, a departmental proceeding could be initiated. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the tribunal committed error in interfering with initiation of a departmental proceeding and the High Court committed error in dismissing the writ petition filed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the tribunal and direct that the departmental proceeding be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
8. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.