HC-GUARD 2 L(Lgb2)

The High Court, however, held, "We are satisfied that The High Court, however, held, "We are satisfied thatthere is no substance in the contentions raised by advocateDalvi on behalf of the petitioner. The charge levelled againsthim is quite a serious one, in that, the petitioner was foundin possession of brown sugar weighing 40 grams at the gate ofYervada Central Prison, where, he was posted as a guard." The High Court further said that if the judgement ofthe NDPS court of October 30, 2007 is perused, it would beobserved that it is not the case of clear acquittal of thepetitioner as he was granted benefit of doubt by trial court. "That apart, it is well settled that the scope andobject of criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings isdistinct and different. In criminal proceedings, prosecutionis required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.Conviction in a criminal prosecution might result incurtailment of liberty. In contrast, the standard of proofin departmental proceedings is only preponderance ofprobabilities," the HC observed. Adverse findings in departmental proceedings, mightresult in imposition of penalty, which may range from, minorpenalty like the one awarded to the petitioner in the presentcase or penalty of dismissal, the bench observed. "Merely because a government servant may have beenacquitted in criminal prosecution, that by itself, is neithera bar to commence departmental proceedings nor a bar to holdthe charges in the departmental enquiry, as proved," theJudges remarked. "In the present case, there is no complaint of anyviolation of principles of natural justice in the course ofthe departmental proceedings. There is no question ofdisproportionate penalty, particularly because, we aresatisfied that the minor penalty, with which, the petitionerhas got away is in fact not proportionate to the charge whichis held as proved against him," the Judges further observed. The Judges said, "It must be remembered that thepetitioner is a prison guard and normally, there is noquestion of leniency, when, charge of attempting to smugglenarcotic substances is held as proved. Possibly, minor penaltyhas been imposed, taking into consideration some mitigatingcircumstances, which are not evident from the record. Be thatas it may, we are satisfied that no case whatsoever has beenmade out to interfere with the impugned order." PTI SVS DKDVSRE