Does proof of misconduct under the Discipline and Appeal Rules require only preponderance of probabilities and not the strict proof required to convict under criminal law?

Service law — Departmental disciplinary proceedings — Acquittal on benefit of doubt — Preponderance of probabilities — Uniformed force — Discipline — Writ Court — Further leniency — Service law — Departmental disciplinary proceedings — Acquittal on benefit of doubt — Held: Acquittal in a criminal case on the benefit of doubt is not a ground for exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings, criminal trial and departmental disciplinary proceedings being distinct and different. (¶8) Service law — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probabilities — Held further: Proof of misconduct under the Discipline and Appeal Rules requires only preponderance of probabilities, not the strict proof required to convict under criminal law, and the disciplinary authority is empowered to draw inferences on that standard. (¶8, 9) Service law — Uniformed force — Discipline — Held further: Discipline in uniformed forces cannot be compromised in any circumstances, and involvement of police personnel in a criminal case is to be viewed seriously. (¶12) Service law — Judicial review of punishment — Further leniency — Held further: A writ Court cannot show further leniency where the appellate authority has modified the punishment and its order is not perverse. Writ appeal allowed. (¶12, 13)