Departmental inquiry after criminal acquittal remains permissible where the disciplinary standard is preponderance of probability.

Departmental proceedings may proceed despite an employee's acquittal in a criminal case because the two processes apply different standards of proof: criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while departmental action is decided on preponderance of probability. Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was read as permitting departmental action where prosecution witnesses had been won over, and the witnesses' failure to support the prosecution did not bar such action. The tribunal and High Court were therefore wrong to quash the departmental proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether a departmental inquiry could be initiated and proceeded with after the delinquent's acquittal in the criminal case, and whether Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 barred such initiation.

Analysis: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate on different standards of proof. A criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a departmental proceeding is decided on preponderance of probability. Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 also contemplated initiation of departmental action where the prosecution witnesses were found to be won over. Since the witnesses did not support the prosecution in the criminal trial, the rule did not prohibit departmental action.

Conclusion: The departmental proceeding was not barred by the acquittal, and the tribunal and High Court erred in quashing it.

---