<p>The court gave the ruling while declining any relief to a police constable who was dismissed from the service for consuming alcohol and allegedly indulging in robbery in a liquor shop, despite his acquittal from the criminal case saying departmental proceedings would remain unaffected with it.<br /><br />“Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both cases are totally different. <br /><br />The prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities,” a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave said. Samar Bahadur Singh was posted as constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. On October 27, 1991, he along with his friends lifted liquor bottle from a shop. A robbery case was registered against him. He was medically examined where he was found under the influence of liquor. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service.<br /><br />Moved to SC<br /><br />Singh approached the apex court after a division bench of the High Court rejected his petition challenging the dismissal. He contended that he had been acquitted in the robbery case registered against him.<br /><br />The apex court, however, refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court saying he belonged to a disciplinary force who was required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. <br /><br />“Instead, he was found under the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence. <br /></p>
<p>The court gave the ruling while declining any relief to a police constable who was dismissed from the service for consuming alcohol and allegedly indulging in robbery in a liquor shop, despite his acquittal from the criminal case saying departmental proceedings would remain unaffected with it.<br /><br />“Acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both cases are totally different. <br /><br />The prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities,” a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave said. Samar Bahadur Singh was posted as constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. On October 27, 1991, he along with his friends lifted liquor bottle from a shop. A robbery case was registered against him. He was medically examined where he was found under the influence of liquor. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service.<br /><br />Moved to SC<br /><br />Singh approached the apex court after a division bench of the High Court rejected his petition challenging the dismissal. He contended that he had been acquitted in the robbery case registered against him.<br /><br />The apex court, however, refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court saying he belonged to a disciplinary force who was required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. <br /><br />“Instead, he was found under the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence. <br /></p>