Pardeep Kumar v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Judgment

#1. invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated seeking a writ of

29.08.2017 certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, (Annexure P the petitioner has passed by respondent No.2, vide which the petitioner has been terminated terminated from the services and for setting aside the order dated for setting aside the order dated , whereby his representation against the order of 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby his representation against the order of , whereby his representation against the order of 24.03.2025 (Annexure P termination has been rejected. has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought to reinstate the petitioner into service with all for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all to reinstate the petitioner into service with all for directing the respondents consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages consequent upon his honourable acquittal consequent upon his Chief by the Court of learned Chief - Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P- Judicial Magistrat

#2) in case FIR No.

05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, in case FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, 05.12.2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda, under Section 409 IPC. District Bathinda, under Section 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (2)

#2. are that the Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner of his service, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was suspended vide order for misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444/- and he was suspended vide order and he was suspended vide order for misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444 Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was dated 02.12.2015. Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was Simultaneously, FIR No.326 dated 05.12.2015 was dated 02.12.2015. registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station registered against the Petitioner under Section 409 IPC at Police Station inda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet Kotwali, District Bathinda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet inda on the same set of allegations. A charge sheet Kotwali, District and upon the conclusion of dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner, and upon the conclusion of dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner dated 19.12.2016 was served upon the petitioner departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report the regular departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding holding holding . the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256/-. the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256 the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Rs.25,72,256 Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner, and a etitioner, and after considering the entire material on record, espondent fter considering the entire material on record, respondent 1) No.1 passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) No.1 passed the impugned order dated No.1 passed the impugned order dated , and financial loss occurred to the terminating the services of the petitioner, and financial loss occurred to the , and financial loss occurred to the terminating the services of the Corporation was to be recovered from the benefits, grat Corporation uity and leaves to be recovered from the benefits, gratuity and leaves Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the payable to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the payable to the petitioner. 2) passed by the criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P criminal case vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Thereafter, he submitted a ated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated representation dated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated ated 05.07.2024, which was rejected vide order dated representation d

24.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved against the same, the 24.03.2025 (Annexure P etitioner has 4). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. preferred the instant

#3. The petitioner had also raised an industrial dispute impugning raised an industrial dispute impugning by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said his termination by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said by way of Reference No.01 of 2025. However, the said his termination reference was was withdrawn by the petitioner , the petitioner, vide order dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the without seeking any liberty. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda reads as under: Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (3) “Pardeep Kumar Conductor Vs. Transport and others mar Conductor Vs. The Chairman Pepsu Road Ref no. 01/2025 Present: Sh. Harvilas Singh A.R. along with workman. Sh. Harvilas Singh A.R. along with workman. Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management Sh. Jasjit Pal Singh Brar A.R. for management /respondent no. 1 to 3. /respondent no. 1 to 3. lf of Sh. Harvilas Singh has put in appearance on behalf of Sh. Harvilas Singh has put in appearance on beha Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The Workman and has filed authority letter in his favour. The workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement workman Pardeep Kumar has suffered a separate statement that he does not want to proceed further with the present that he does not want to proceed further with the present that he does not want to proceed further with the present reference due to technical effect. reference due to technical effect. In view of the statement suffered by the workman In view of the statement suffered by the wo Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as Pardeep Kumar, the present reference stands dismissed as withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the withdrawn. File complete in all respects be consigned to the record room. Dated: 10.04.2026 Sd/-10.04.2026 (Kulbhushan Kumar) Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda”

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of criminal case and the departmental proceedings arose out of the same set of allegations, and the petitioner has and the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal already been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated Furthermore, he he is entitled to be reinstated into service. Furthermore, he submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, submits that the order of termination has been passed by the Chairman, PRTC, Patiala, whereas, the appointing/punishing PRTC, Patiala, whereas, the appointing etitioner /punishing authority of the petitioner is the General Manager, PRTC, Patiala. is the General Manager, PRTC

#5. On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in On receipt of advance copy, Mr. Anupam Singla, has put in espondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the espondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the appearance on behalf of etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. etitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the material facts. 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (4) erred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 He submits that the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 erred an appeal dated 04.10.2017 He submits that the petitioner had pref against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide against the termination order dated 29.08.2017, which was rejected vide 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 order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to order dated 22.05.2018 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to 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 the petitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the etitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the etitioner. However, neither the factum of filing of an appeal nor the order dated 22.05.2018, rejecting the appeal of the order dated 22.05.2018 etitioner has been rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has been disclosed in the petition. Furthermore, he has submitted that the disclosed in the etitioner etition. Furthermore, he has submitted that the petitioner was not honourably honourably acquitted, rather a perusal of the judg ment passed by the , rather a perusal of the judgment passed by the Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was Bathinda reveals that that the petitioner was Chief Judicial Magistrate, merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further submits that the petitioner merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further merely extended the benefit of doubt. He further by way of had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, by way of had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal had earlier approached the Industrial Tribunal ide order Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the petitioner, vide order Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the Reference No.01 of 2025, which was withdrawn by the dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that dated 10.04.2026, without seeking any liberty. He further submits that 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 petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the 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 termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition termination order was passed on 29.08.2017, whereas, the present petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of nine years. has been filed after an o inordinate delay of nine years. Moreover, to controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the controvert the contention of petitioner that the learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is termination order has been passed by an incompetent authority, it is only the submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not only the submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not submitted that the case pertains to embezzlement involving not petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since petitioner, but also the General Manager and the Assistant Controller. Since sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the the said officers were charge-sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the sheeted by their disciplinary authority i.e. the the said officers were charge Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted Chairman, therefore, proceedings against all the delinquents were conducted together by the Chairman. together by th

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

#7. etitioner was appointed as The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as The facts are not in dispute that the a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, a Conductor in PRTC in the year 2008. During the tenure of his service, 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (5) allegations regarding misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444 allegations regarding led to initiation of misappropriation of Rs.26,59,444/- led to initiation of Thereafter, after both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. Thereafter, after both departmental proceedings and criminal both departmental proceedings and criminal issuance of charge sheet dated 19.12.2016, issuance of charge sheet dated 19.12.2016, regular which was followed by regular a show cause departmental enquiry wherein the charges were proved and a show cause departmental enquiry wherein the charges were prove departmental enquiry wherein the charges were prove notice dated 11.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner notice dated 11.05.2017 was terminated petitioner and he was terminated from service, vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P from service 1). Aggrieved vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved etitioner had preferred an appeal dated against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated etitioner had preferred an appeal dated against the aforesaid order, the r affording an opportunity of personal hearing on 04.10.2017, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing on r affording an opportunity of personal hearing on 04.10.2017, and afte

03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, 03.05.2018, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 22.05.2018. However, 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 neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal neither the factum of the filing the appeal nor the order rejecting the appeal heet, inquiry report and has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge-sheet, inquiry report and has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge has been disclosed in the petition. Even the charge show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings show cause notice which form the foundation of disciplinary proceedings have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts have not been annexed with the petition. Such concealment of material facts 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 strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from strikes at the very root of the petitioner’s claim and disentitles him from invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is a well settled proposition of g the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is a well settled proposition of It is a well settled proposition of law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and law that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands and 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, plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, plays fraud with the Court, is not entitled for any relief. Any concealment, n of such facts amounts to an abuse of the suppression, or misrepresentation of such facts amounts to an abuse of the n of such facts amounts to an abuse of the suppression, or misrepresentatio process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. The process of law and vitiates the very foundation of the relief claimed. 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 Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its Court, being a forum of equity as well as justice, does not extend its come with discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not come with discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not discretionary or extraordinary jurisdiction to a party who has not clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the clean hands. Suppression of material facts not only undermines the but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable administration of justice, but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable but also disentitles the litigant from any equitable administration of justice relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the relief, irrespective of the merits of the case. The obligation to approach the Court with utmost candour and bonafides is not a mere formality Court with utmost ca but a ndour and bonafides is not a mere formality, but a substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the substantive requirement of law. Reference in this regard can be made to the 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (6) Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT judgments in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 1995 (4) SCT judgments in Lehna Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (3) SCT 115 and Lehna Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, 799, Jiwan Dass Sethi Vs. State of Punjab, Singh Vs. The Haryana State, 2026 NCPHHC 18298 Singh Vs. The Haryana State, 2026 NCPHHC 18298.

#8. So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the So far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, is a well he is entitled to be reinstated in service is concerned, it is a well he is entitled to be reinstated in service therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and are acquittal in a criminal governed by different standards of proof. Thus, later acquittal in a criminal governed by different standards of proof. Thus, governed by different standards of proof. Thus, invalidate the findings of the departmental case does not ipso facto invalidate the findings of the departmental invalidate the findings of the departmental case does not proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the proceedings. In the present case, the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. petitioner has been passed after conducting a regular departmental inquiry. n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended Moreover, in the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended n the criminal case, the petitioner has been merely extended benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted. benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted. benefit of doubt and has not been honorably acquitted.

#9. Three Judge Bench Reliance in this regard may be made to a Three Judge Bench Reliance in this regard may be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag . G.M. (P.J.) Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd an Oil Corporation Ltd., 2005 (7) SCC 764 following 2005 (7) SCC 764, wherein following observations have been made: As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is “12. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. Acquittal by a In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. iminal court would not debar an employer from exercising criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising iminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings - criminal and departmental are entirely criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different different. They operate in different fields and have different different. They operate in different fields and have different 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (7) Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a ng statement made by the accused in criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in ng statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The er a conviction is degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is degree of proof which is necessary to ord different from the degree of proof necessary to record the different from the degree of proof necessary to record the different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal less the law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and un prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the sis of basis of Acquittal of the 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the 'preponderance of probability'. appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to tion of the appellant that since he was uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was tion of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.” him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (8)

#10. a judgment of Further reliance in this regard may be placed on a judgment of Further reliance in this regard may be placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India the Hon’ble Supreme Court in . Pradip rports Authority of India Vs. Pradip it has been observed as under: Kumar Banerjee, 2025 INSC 149, wherein it has been observed as under: Kumar Banerjee “34. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required grave error in substituting the standard of proof required grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis- the disciplinary enquiry -à-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the ent is limited and it is required to prove its case department is limited and it is required to prove its case ent is limited and it is required to prove its case In this on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In this on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in . Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC the Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC . Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618 wherein this Court held as follows: wherein this Court held as follows: - "15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The trial. The trial. The standard proof standard proof standard proof required required required that of that of that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond preponderance of probability and not proof beyond preponderance of probability and not proof beyond Kumar was reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand a person likely to have official dealings with the a person likely to have official dealings with the a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would respondent was one which a reasonable person would respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on nt materials which the it. Where there are some relevant materials which the it. Where there are some releva authority has accepted and which materials may authority has accepted and which materials may authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is 2026 (O&M) CWP-20474-2026 (O&M) (9) guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials at an independent finding on the materials. and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of If the enquiry has been properly held the question of If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. . . ."” canvassed before the High Court

#11. Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been Apart from the above, the services of the petitioner had been 1), whereas the terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), whereas the terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P terminated vide order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about petitioner has filed the present petition after an inordinate delay of about 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 nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and nine years. Such belated challenge is clearly hit by the doctrine of delay and 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 laches, and anyone who claims ri ghts must be vigilant and must enforce such rights within a reasonable period of time. rights within a reasonable period of time.

#12. In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal In view of the abovesaid discussion and the settled legal this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach position, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach for proper the Court with clean hands and has withheld material facts for proper the Court with clean hands and has withheld the Court with clean hands and has withheld adjudication of the present petition. A person, who suppresses material facts adjudication of the present petition. A person, who adjudication of the present petition. A person, who or attempts to mislead the Court, is not entitled to invoke or attempts to mislead the Court jurisdiction s not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

#13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- , to be deposited with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, the date of passing of this order. within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this order. within a period of

09.07.2026 Vimal (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No