Holding

The order dropping the departmental disciplinary proceedings was untenable and was set aside; the disciplinary inquiry must continue.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined allegations of irregularities in the allotment, conversion and regularisation of plots in NOIDA, which led to a one‑man inquiry commission and the initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings against Smt. Neera Yadav, then CEO of NOIDA. While a CBI investigation was pending, the Uttar Pradesh Government kept the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance and, after receiving the CBI report, decided to drop them altogether. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the State had no rational basis for abandoning the departmental inquiry and that disciplinary and criminal proceedings are distinct in purpose and standard of proof. The Court held that the State's order was unreasonable, that departmental inquiries may proceed even when a criminal investigation is underway, and that the standard of proof in disciplinary matters differs from that in criminal cases. Consequently, the order dropping the disciplinary proceedings was quashed and the departmental inquiry was directed to continue.

Issues considered

The State Government may lawfully drop or stay departmental disciplinary proceedings against a public servant solely because a criminal investigation (CBI) has been completed.
Whether the standard of proof required in departmental proceedings differs from that required in criminal prosecutions and whether an acquittal in criminal court bars disciplinary action.
Whether the State's decision to discontinue the disciplinary inquiry was reasonable and in accordance with principles of administrative law.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Subjects

departmental inquirydisciplinary proceedingsstandard of proofcriminal investigationCBI reportadministrative lawreasonableness of executive actionservice lawparallel criminal and disciplinary proceedingsacquittal effect

Judgment

A NO IDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSN.
\
v.
NOIDAAND ORS.

JANUARY 15, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
,..,.-\
Service Law: \ .....

Disciplinary proceedings-Alleged irregularities in allotment,
C conversion and regularisation of plots-Departmental disciplinary
proceedings against delinquent officer kept in abeyance till finalization of
CBI inquiry-Finally dropped on consideration of the CBI Inquiry Report-
Correctness of-Held, Order of the State Government deciding not to
continue the departmental proceedings is incorrect and hence quashed-
D Standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same
as required to prove a criminal charge-Even if there is an acquittal in
criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings.
..
Certain irregularities were allegedly made in allotment, conversion
and regularization of plots in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
E (NOIDA). One man Inquiry Commission was constituted. Based on its
report, Departmental inquiry proceedings was initiated against Respondent
No.7, who at the relevant time was posted as the Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA. Since the matter was also being inquired into by the CBI, the State
Government decided to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in
abeyance till the CBI inquiry was over. The CBI submitted its report on
F consideration whereof, the State Govei:nment decided to drop the pending
departmental proceedings against Respondent No.7. The said order of the
State Government has been challenged before this Court.

Setting aside the order of the State Government, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The stand taken by the State Government primafacie shows
that the State Government is interested to protect Respondent No. 7 at any
cost. A bare perusal of the order passed by the State Government goes to
show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The conceptual
difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has
H
892
)..

NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. 893

not been kept in view. Even orders passed by the executive have to be tested A
on the touchstone of reasonableness. (Paras 10 & 11) [899-F-G)

Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Teri Oat Estates
(P) Ltd. v. U. T Chandigarh and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 130; Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T Srinivas, [2004) 7 SCC 442; Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry, {2005) 10 SCC B
471 and Uttranchal Road Transport Co1pn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, {2006)
6 sec 366, relied on.

2. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two
different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an C
offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach
of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the
public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission
of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient
that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as D
expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any
guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may
or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent
officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts
and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with E
departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the
criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and
law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished
from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for
criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the
offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian F
Evidence Act, 1872. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The
enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty
of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under
the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or
applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. G
Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the
department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence
at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be
considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
[Para 12) [900-B-G)
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R

A Depot Manager, A.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd.
Yousuf Miya and Ors., (1997] 2 SCC 699 and State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena and Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 417, relied on.
3. There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the
departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the
trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent
B
official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and
at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be
stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending. [Para 15] [901-B]

Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., [1999] 3 SCC 679
c and Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, [1997) 4 SCC 385,
relied on.

4. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not
the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an
acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental
proceedings. That being so the order of the State Government deciding not
D to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is
quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue.
[Para 18) (902-H, 903-A]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 150of1997.

E Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH
W.P. (Civil) NO. 529 of 1998.

Rajeev Dhawan (A.C.), Dipankar P. Gupta, Rakesh Dwivedi, K.T.S.
F Tulsi, Ashok H. Desai, L.N. Rao, Sr. Advs., Dayan Krishnan (A.C.), Nikhil
Nayyar (A.C.), E.C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Manjula Gupta, M.D. Pandeya, P.
Parmeswaran, R.S. Suri, Vinay K., Ajay Dhaiya, Shivinder Diwedi, Ms.
Sangeeta Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Gorab Librahan, K. Sultan Singh, Manish K.
Sanyal, M.S. Yadav, Raj Kamal, Abhisth Kumar, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ms.
Deepti Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Ajay K. Agrawal, M~. Alka Agrawal, Ms.
G Anamika Agrawal, K.B. Rohtagi, Sunil Malhotra, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain
and Mahesh Kasana, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: 1. The present order will dispose ofone
H of the issues relating to decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government not to

{
NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. [PASAYAT,J.] 895

take disciplinary action against Smt. Neera Yadav-respondent No.7. A
2. A brief reference to certain earlier events and orders passed by this
Court would be necessary.

3. On consideration of complaints received during the period 1994-96
the State Government decided to enquire into the allegations. These
allegations related to irregularities in allotments and conversions of land in
B
·- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short 'NOIDA').
Explanation was asked by Principal Secretary (Heavy Industries) of the
Government of U.P. from Smt. Neera Yadav. On 2.2.1995 the then Chief
Minister of U.P. observed that there was no need for any action in the
matter. In November, 1995, a Memorandum was submitted by NOIDA c
Entrepreneurs Association- the petitioner in the present writ petition,
requesting for enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the
'CBI') regarding the alleged irregularities in allotments and conversions in
NOIDA. It appears at different stages Smt. Neera Yadav submitted her
explanations. On 13.12.1996 a letter was written by the then Director CBI Sri
Joginder Singh regarding information received from sources pertaining to D
alleged irregularities in the matter of allotments, conversions and
regularization of plots in NOIDA. Taking into account the said letter the
State Government constituted a Commission (hereinafter referred to as
Justice Murtaza Hussain Commission). A report was submitted by the said
Commission on 9.12.1997. In the report various details were given. On the E
basis of the report, the then Chief Secretary recommended departmental
action in respect of specific findings against Smt. Neera Yadav and also an
enquiry by the Vigilance department in matters relating to which the
Commission had not given any clear finding. The then Chairman of Board
of Revenue Mr. A.P. Singh was recommended to be the enquiry officer. The
then Chief Minister concurred with the findings of the then Chief Secretary. F
In the meantime, the writ petition had been filed before this Court. By order
dated 6.1.1998 this Court directed the State Government to indicate its stand
on affidavit in respect of the conclusions of Justice Murtaza Hussain
Commission. On 9 .1.1998 the then Chief Minister of the State approved the
findings of the then Chief Secretary recorded on 27 .12.1997 and specifically
in relation to the suggestions for departmental action in accordance with the G
rules. On that very date the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit before
this Court wherein it was stated that keeping in view the gravity of the
irregularities committed, it has decided to start departmental proceedings
against Smt. Neera Yadav. It was also stated in the affidavit that regarding
those charges about which the Commission had expressed its inability to H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A give specific recommendations for want of further investigation, the State
Government had decided to get the matter inquired into by the Vigilance
department of the State. Taking note of all these aspects, this Court by
order dated 20.1.1998 directed that the matter should be investigated by the
CBI and if such investigation discloses the commission of criminal offence
the person/persons found responsible should be prosecuted in a Criminal
B court. It was specifically noted that the State Government was proposing
to initiate departmental proceeding against Smt. Neera Yadav. On 18.12.1998
the State Government of Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit before this Court
-·
stating that the enquiry by the Vigilance department which was initiated in
respect of those aspects about which Commission had expressed its inability
c to give specific recommendation was being dropped on account of the fact
that the CBI was enquiring into the matter. Prior to that on 26.5.1998 charge
sheet had been issued to Smt. Neera Yadav and an enquiry officer was
appointed. Three charges framed were as follows:

"l. Allotment and conversion of residential plots in her favour
D and also in favour of her two daughters.

2. Allotment/conversion of residential plots in favour of Anand
Kumar/Subash Kumar within three months of their appointment as
carpenter and junior clerk.

E 3 Allotment/conversion of the residential plot to Rajeev Kumar
Dy. CEO and increase in area."

4. On 25.2.1999 Smt. Neera Yadav filed a representation stating that in
view of the criminal investigation, departmental proceedings should not
proceed. On 1.5.1999 the State ofU.P. filed an affidavit before this Court
F
indicating that disciplinary action had been initiated against Smt. Neera
Yadav and charge sheet had been issued on her on 26.5.1998. It was also
stated therein that Smt. Neera Yadav had requested that since the matter was
being inquired into by the CBI, departmental inquiry should be dropped.
The State Government obtained the opinion of its Law department which
G found that the departmental inquiry was validly initiated, and further plea to
keep the proceeding in abeyance was taking note of by referring to para 1.8
of the Vigilance Manual. On 8. 7 .1999 the Principal Secretary (Law) of the
State took a stand that parallel inquiry should be avoided and that any
action should be taken after completion of the CBI inquiry, on the basis of
its report. On 22.7.1999 the then Chief Minister noted that when the CBI
H
l

NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. [PASAYAT,J.] 897
... investigation was in progress, parallel administrative enquiry was not A
necessary. On 5.8.1999 the Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order
keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance. On 19.1.2001 this Court
passed the order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit
about present position in relation to departmental enquiry. In compliance of
the said order, on 8.11.2001 the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit
stating that it has kept the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance till the CBI B
enquiry is over. On 28.3.2002 CBI submitted its report in sealed cover. This
Court directed the State ofU.P. to file an affidavit in respect of action taken
against the officers and directed that the affidavit should also indicate the
stage of disciplinary proceedings against Smt. Neera Yadav.

5. Thereafter starts a new twist to the whole matter. On 13.6.2002 the
c
Legal Remembrancer of the State opined that it would not be appropriate to
accord saPction for prosecution or initiate departmental proceeding for any
irregularity. On 24.6.2002 the Advocate General concurred with the said
opinion. On 28.6.2002 the Government ofU.P. decided not to take departmental
action/initiate prosecution in relation to the recommendations in the report D
of the CBI. The State ofU.P. on 17.9.2002 filed an affidavit before this Court
stating that there was no justification for initiating departmental enquiry as
"after detailed consideration of the report of the CBI no justification was
found for initiating departmental enquiry", since the departmental enquiry
recommended by Justice Murtaza Hussain's Commission was based only on E
those points. In the light of said facts the allegations were not legally
tenable and the Government has decided to close the pending departmental
enquiry. On 11.1.2005 this Court in relation to certain issues passed the
following order:

.. "Having regard to the nature of the proceedings it would be
appropriate to appoint a Commission to go into the various questions
F
raised in these matters including the issue as to why the
departmental action has been dropped against several respondents
as pointed out by the Amicus Curiae in his report filed on
14.12.2004. Mr. K.T.Thomas, retired judge of this Court is appointed
as the sole member of the Commission."
G

- 6. The Commission framed several issues and noted that the State
Government should not have dropped disciplinary proceeding against Smt.
Neera Yadav in the light of adverse findings against her in the report of the
Judicial Commission as well as on the report of the CBI. The State of U .P. H
J

898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 1 S.C.R.

A was asked to clarify as to under what circumstances the decision to drop ..
the departmental proceeding was taken. The entire records relating to the
decisions at different stages have been brought on record and a synopsis
has also been filed referring to various letters/observations/findings at
different points of time.

B 7. The order dated 16th September, 2002 is the one the legality of which
is questioned. The entire order needs to b.e ,quoted. The same reads as
follows:

"By the notification no. 86/N/96, dated 25 January 97 one man
inquiry commission was constituted. The Commission inquired into
c the irregularities committed by Smt. Neera Yadav, !AS (1971), during
her posting as Chief Executive Officer, Noida in allotment of plots
and properties.

On the basis of the report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Murtaza Husain Inquiry Commission it was decided to initiate
D
departmental inquiry against Smt. Neera Yadav and by the order of
Appointment Section -5 No. 930(1)/Two-5-98-22(29)/74 dated
26.5.1998 charge sheet was issued against Smt. Neera Yadav.

Smt. Neera Yadav vide her applications dated 16.9.98, 25.2.99 and
E 3.5.99 requested for cancellation of departmental inquiry being
initiated against her, on which after due consideration the
departmental inquiry initiated against Smt. Neera Yadav was stayed
vide Govt. Order No.4209/Two-599-35(136)/97 dated 5 Aug., 1999 till
finalization of inquiry by the CBI against Smt. Neera Yadav.

F Because in the case under consideration the report of the CBI was
received on 28.3.2002 along with the recommendation, after
examination of which State Govt. did not find it necessary to take
any action on the point of departmental inquiry against Smt. Neera
Yadav:
G It is worth mentioning that the points on which Departmental
Inquiry was initiated against Smt. Neera Yadav on the basis of the
report of Hon'ble Mr. Murtaza Husain, on the same point after due
consideration of the CBI inquiry report it was found that the
departmental inquiry was not required. Therefore, in view of the
H above it was decided by the Govt. that the departmental inquiry
NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 899

pending against Smt. Neera Yadav may be dropped. A
Therefore, His Excellency, the Governor, grants permission to drop
the pending departmental inquiry against Smt. Neera Yadav, !AS
(1971)."

8. The basis as culled down from the order is as follows: B
"It is worth mentioning that the points on which Departmental
Inquiry was initiated against Smt. Neera Yadav on the basis of the
report of Hon'ble Mr. Murtaza Husain, on the same point after due
consideration of the CBI inquiry report it was found that the
departmental inquiry was not required Therefore, in view of the C
above it was decided by the Govt. that the departmental inquiry
pending against Smt. Neera Yadav may be dropped."

9. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that conclusions are not
based on any rationality. Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings
stand on different footings. There is no rationality in the decision and it D
cannot be said to be reasonable by any standard.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State of U.P. submitted that
taking into account the totality of circumstances, the order was passed and
there is nothing illicit in it. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned counsel appearing for E
Smt. Neera Yadav submitted that the order does not suffer from any infirmity
and in any event if it is conceded for the sake of argument that there was
any infirmity, this Court can direct the proceedings to take off from the stage
. as it stood on 5.8.1999 when the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh had passed order
for keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance. This is in fact a re-
iteration of the stand taken by the State Government. We are not only F
baffled but also perplexed at such a stand being taken by the State. This
prima facie shows that the State Government is interested to protect Smt.
Neera Yadav at any cost.

11. A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its totality
goes to show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The G
conceptual difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal

- proceedings has not been kept in view. Even orders passed by the
executive have to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness. (See: Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, [ 1994] 6 SCC 651 and Teri Oat Estates (P.) Ltd.
v. UT. Chandigarh and Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 130. The conceptual difference H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A between departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have been
highlighted by this Court in several cases. Reference may be made to
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. T. Srinivas, [2004] 7 SCC 442,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry, [2005)
IO SCC 471 and Uttaranchal Road TransportCorpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal,
(2006] 6 sec 366.
B
12. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two
different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an
offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach
of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the
c public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission
of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that
the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously
as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as
inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be
D stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case
requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.
There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry
and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave
nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally
implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights
E
punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted
it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence
defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the
'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry
in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the
F delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the
relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability
of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these
circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department
enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinqvent in his defence at the trial
in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each
G
case depending on its own facts and circumstances.

13. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, A.P. State
Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., [1997] 2 SCC
699 analysed the legal position in great detail on the above lines.
H
(

NO IDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSN. v. NOIDA& ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 901

14. The aforesaid position was also noted in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. A
Meena and Ors., (1996] 6 SCC 417.

15. There can be no straight jacket formula as to in which case the
departmental proceedings are to be stayed. There may be cases where the
trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent
official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and B
at _the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be
stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.

16. In Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999] 3 SCC
679, this Court indicated some of the fact situations which would govern the
question whether departmental proceedings should be l<ept in abeyance c
during pendency of a criminal case. In paragraph 22 conclusions which are
deducible from various decisions were summarised. They are as follows:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case
can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being
conducted simultaneously, though separately.
D

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based
on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal
case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions oflaw and fact, it would be desirable E
to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the
criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and
whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that
case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case F
launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and
material collected against him during investigation or as reflected
in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered
in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard G
has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings
cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being
unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be
resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early
date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may
be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may
get rid of him at the earliest.

B 17. The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case, its effect.
on departmental proceedings and re-instatement in service has been dealt
with by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, [ 1997]
4 SCC 385. It was held in paragraph 5 as follows :

"5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court
c but a:tquittal does not automatically give him the right to be re-
instated into the service. It would still be open to the competent
authority to take decision whether the delinquent government
servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be
taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
D Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly,
the respondent had been working as a temporary government
servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination
order indicated the factum that he, by then, was under suspension.
It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension +.hen
the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any
E stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does not
automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As
stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent
. authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct
is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate
F action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the
respondent is only a temporary government servant, the power
being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to
the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the
services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to
continue in service a government servant accused of defalcation of
G public money. Re- instatement would be a charter for him to indulge
with impunity in misappropriation of public money."

18. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not
the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an
H ·acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental
(

i.

NOIDAENTREPRENEURSASSN. v. NOIDA&ORS. [PASAYAT,J.] 903

./
proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not A
to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed.
The departmental proceedings shall continue.

19. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned counsel for Smt. Neera Yadav stated that
an appropriate motion shall be made before the departmental authorities to
keep the proceedings in abeyance till conclusions of the criminal proceedings. B
If such prayer is made, the same shall be considered in the light of the
principles set out by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. 's case (supra)
and Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. 's case (supra). It is ordered
accordingly.

B.B.B. Writ Petitions disposed of.
c