CBI REGISTERED A CASE AGAINST PERSON "X" SINGH BUT DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE CBI COURT CLOSED THE CASE HENCE CASE IS CLOSED BEFORE IT IS STARTED BUT DEPARTMENT ENQUIRY WAS INITIATED AND PERSON"X"SINGH WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CHARGES AND WAS TERMINATED FROM THE SERVICE.NOW I WANT TO KNOW HOW CAN HE BE PUNISHED DEPARTMENTALLY IF CBI DID NOT FIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND CBI FILED CLOSURE REPORT TO CLOSE THE CASE AGAINST PERSON "X" IN CBI COURT. AND WHEN PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS USED AS TOLD BY SC IN Union Of India And Others vs Naman Singh Sekhawat on 14 March, 2008 (AS in a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an employee, there must be investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice in so far as these are applicable in a particular situation.) THEN preponderance of probability CANNOT BE USED . IF IT IS USED CAN THESE TWO THINGS USED SIMULTANEOUSLY AS preponderance of probability MAY RESULT IN JOB TERMINATION AS PROOF IS NOT REQUIRED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND ALSO HOW MUCH probability IS REQUIRED ? IF THERE IS SO MUCH probability (MORE THAN 50%) THEN WHY CBI FILED CLOSURE REPORT AND WHY CBI COURT ACCEPTED THAT ? CBI HERSELF TRANSFER THE CASE TO DEPARTMENT .AND HOW CAN CBI WHEN FILED CLOSURE REPORT TRANSFER THE CASE TO DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT THEN TERMINATED PERSON"X" SINGH.
