• A r' c\ ^' '^. <1 -^. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Siagle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agaihotri, J. WRIT PETITION N0. 376 OF 2003 Petitioner : Lakhaa Lal Nayak, aged aboiit 42 years, Son of Late Shri Ragliunaiidaii Nayak, village aad Post Deoszindra, Via-Palari, District Raipzir (C.G.). Versus Respondents : 1. Ministry ofHorae Affairs Through Secretaiy State of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir 2. Ministiy of Hoine AfFairs Through- Secretaiy State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3, Deputy Secretary, State ofM.P. Hoine (PoUce) Departaient/Bhopal, 4. D. G. P. (Rail) Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. 5. Supenntendent of PoUce (Rsdl) Raipur (C.G.). Preseaat: Shri R.K. Jaiswal, coiinsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for fhe respondents /State. ORALORDBR (7th February, 2006) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was Constable in General RaUways PoUce. On 5.10.1993, fhe petitioner was found in drunken condition anid inisbehaved one Prakesh Maheshwad and his friends. Prakash Maheshwari an^d his friends k>dged aa F.I.R. (Annexure P-1) iii the General RaUway PoUce, Raipzir on fhe same day aUegiiig fhat tlie petitioner >^ ^ -^' demaaded inoney aiid wuie ioipersonatmg himself as C.I.D. Officer. The petitioner further assazilted one Bhagwaa Yadav. Pursuaat to the said F.I.R. dated 5.10.1993, fhe Superiutendent of PoUce, RaUways, Raipur suspended the petitioner froni his seivice on fhe grozind that the petitioner had inisbehaved with the pziblic io. dnraken condition aad abzised aad assazilted soiae ofthe persoiis at raUway station, Raipur. The charge-sheet was issued on 6.11.1993 (Annexure P-3), on fhe charges fhat fhe petrdoner was fbund in druiiken condition ia the night on 5.10,1993 at Raipiir, RaUway station platfomi. The petitioner abused aad assaulted pziblic ia breach of fhe norms of discipUne of the poUce force and fhe petitioner had mipersonate.d hioiself as C.I.D. officer aad according inisled fhe pzibUc, at large, The petitioner szibinitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure P-4), vide letter dated 26.12.1993 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner sent a letter to fhe enqiiiry officer fhat since. the case has been coianutted to fhe tdal, the enquuy be stayed, bzit fhe enquiry contiiiiied. The enqiiiry officer after haviag exaiauied aU the witaesses prodziced by both the sides, siibinitted his report dated 8.2.1994, holdiag aU tiie charges, alleged agaiast fhe petitioner, proved agaiust the petitioner. Agreeiag wifh the enquiiy report, fhe Superiatendent of PoUce, Railways at Raipur imposed fh.e piinishnient of disniissal froni service vide letter dated 22.2.1994 (Amiexure P-7) w.e.f. 22.2.1994. ^. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fUed fhe statutoiy appeal beforc fhe Depnty Inspector General of PoUce, Railways Bhopal. The Deputy Inspector Geueral of PoUce, Railways Bhopal by his order dated 3.10.1994, agreeiag wifh the fuidnigs offhe enqutry officer aad the pzinishinent awarded by fhe disciptmary aufhority, disraissed fhe appeal. 7, It is weU setfled prhiciple of law fhat if fhe enqiiiry report has been approved by fhe disciplinary aufhority as weU as fhe appeUate azifhority, fhis Coiirt shozUd not sit as an appeUate court aad should not iateriere with fhe fniduigs of facts, unless tliere is perversity in appUcation of proper law aad the enquiry report is not on fhe basis ofthe evidence, 8. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subraits fhat the petitioner has been acqiiitted iii fhe cniniaal trial vide order dated 20.10.1995 (Annexiire P-33) for the saine charges, on fhe same evidence. 9. Learaed counsel for the petitioner reUes on a decision of the Supreme Court m Captaia Mc Paul Asithory v. Bliarat Gold Misies Ltd. and aaother1, wherem tlie Supreme Court held tliat if the prosecution case has been fhrown out aad the appeUaiit has been acqiiitted, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to aUow tlie fuidiags recorded at the ex-parte departniental proceeduigs. 10. Shri Alok Bakshi, learae-d GoveiTLQient Advocate appearmg for fhe respondents subinits fhat this petition has been filed after 1AIR 1999 Siipreme Court 1416 '(^., aii uiordiaate delay of eight years. The appellate aiifliority passed the order on 20.10.1995 aad fhis petitiou has been filed on 22.1.2003. Leanied coiuisel for fhe respondents ftirther submits that fhe petitioner has not been honorably acquitted, bzit the petitioner was acqiiitted on the ground, that fhe prosecution has faUed to prove, identity of the petitioner, who in drunken condition, had assaulted Shri Prakesh Maheshwad and ofher pubMc. The wit&esses could not identify fhe petitioner aad as such the petitfoner was acquitted on the grotind fhat the prosecution has faUed to prove fliis case beyond rcasonable doubt, 11. I have heard leanied counsel for the parties aad perused the records appended to fhe pleadiags. I aia of the opiaion fhat fhe decision of tiie Sziprenie Court io. fhe case of Captaia M. Paiil Anfhony (Siipra) is not appUcable to the fact of fhe present case. In fhe case of Captain M.Paul Anfhony (Siipra), fhe proseczition was thrown oiit coiapletely on all counts. In fhe present case, fhe iacident had been proved. It has also been proved that fhe petitioner was in. dninken condition and raisbehaved wifh fhe pubUc and assaulted the public on fhe date of uicident at railway platfonn, Raipzir. The petitioner has been acqiiitted on the ground fhat fhe prosecution has failed to prove identity of fhe acczised i.e. petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 12. It is estabUshed principle of law that flie ciimin.al trial reqiiires strict proof of evideuce aad fhe departniental enquuy does not reqziire the same staadard of evidence for '^. estabUshuig fhe case. The enquuy of&cer has gone ia detaU aad has examined all the witaesses produced by the preseutiag officer as weU as fhe petitioner aad fhe enqiiiry report hasbeen approved by the discipUiiaiy aufhority as weU as fhe appeUate azithority. 13. The Supreme Court ia Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Traaasport Corporatioa V. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others2 has held as iinder :- "8. We are ia respectfzil agreement wifh the above view. The pzirpose of departaiental enqiiiry aiid of prosecntiou are two different aad distinct aspects. The crmiiiial prosecntion is launched for aii offence for violation of a dzity, the offeuder owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided fhat fhe offender shall laake satisfaction to flie pubUc. So crinie is an act of conimission ia violation of law or of oraission of public dzity. The departniental enquiry is to iiiaiiitain. discipUne ia the service aad efficiency ofpubUc sendce. It would, fherefore, be expediexit fhat the discipliaary proceediags are condiicted and conipleted as expeditiously as possible, It is not, fherefore, desirable to lay down aay guidelmes as iaflexible niles ia which tihie departaiental proceeduigs inay or niay not be stayed pendiag tdal in cnmuial case agaiast the delmqzient officer. Each case requires to be considered ia fhe backdrop of its own facts and circuinstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaiieoiisly with departaiental enquiry aad tdal of a cnmuial case unless the charge ia the crfcmiaal trial is ofgrave nature iavolviag coinpUcate.d qziestions of fact aad law. 2(1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 699 ^ "Y; Offence generaUy iinplies iafriageinent of pzibUc (sic duty), as distingzushed from niere private rights piinishable under cruniaal law. When trial for crimiaal ofFence is condiicted it should be ia accordaace wifh proof of the offence as per fhe evidence defuied under fhe provisions of the Evidence. Act. Converse is flie case of departniental enquiry. The enquiry ia a departniental prpceediags relates to condzict or breach of duty of fhe deUnquent officer to punish hun for his iniscondiict defuied zuider the relevaiit statutoiy rules or law. That fhe strict staadard ofproofor appUcability of the Evidence Act stands exchided is a settted legal position, The enquiry ia fhe departmental proceediags relates to flie coudiict of the delinquent oflficer aad proof ia fhat behalf is not as high as in aa ofiTence ia crioiHial charge. It is seen that uivariably tlie departaiental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to efFecttiate efficiency ia pzibUc adiiiiiiistration aad tlie cmniaal trial wUl take its own cozirse. The natzire of evideuce in criiaiaal tdal is eutirely different froni the departaiental proceedings. In fhe former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable dozibt on ttie touchstone of hunian conduct. The standard of proof ui the departnieutal proceediags is not the sarae as of fhe criimuial tdal. The evidence also is different froni the staadard poiat of fhe Evidence Act. The evideiice required ia tlie departaiental enquiiy is not regulated by fhe Evidence Act. Under fhese circuinstances, what is required to be seen is whefher fhe departaiental enqziuy wozild senously prejudice the deUnquent ia his defence at fhe tnal ia a crimiiiial case. It is always a qziestion of fact to be considered ia each case dependuig on its own facts and circum.staiices. In fhis case, we have seen fhat fhe charge is faUure to aiiticipate the accident aiid preveution fhereof. It has nothiag to do with the ciilpabillly ofthe oflfence under Sections 304-A and 338, "^. X;, ^ IPC. Under fhese circurastances, fhe High Coiirt was not nght ia stayiag flie proceeduigs." 14. The Supreme Court ia Govt. of T.N. and others V. S. Vel Raj3 has held as under :- "7. The tribzinal was also wrong ia holdiag fhat what was alleged agamst fhe respondent did iiot ainount to aii act of Biiscondn^t. Under Rule 2 of fhe rules punishment can be imposed upon a nieiiiber of fhe service "for good and suflScient reason". Therefore, the Tribzuial ozight to have examiaed the case froni tih.at aagle. The respondent when he appeared before the PSI at 8 p.in. on 7-7-1984 was on duty. He had retunied to fhe poUce station for reportiag to fhe PSI as to what he had done regardiag the directions given to hira earlier. At fhat tiine he was foiuid in. a drunken condition aad was ui "nizifti^. He had even adnutted before fhe PSI th.at he had consuraed <rtfarrack?jl and it was for fliat reason that he was siiieUing of alcohol. Iii this context, it was reqiiired to be considered whefher fhere was "good aad siifficient reason" for iaitiatmg a discipluiary proceediag agaiiist hini aiid iiiiposuig fhe punishm.ent ofcompulsoiy retirement The police force has to be a discipUned force and a nieniber of fhe pubUc force has to behave ia a disciplmed niaaner particularly when he is on dzity. The respondeiit even though lie was sent for official work aiid was on duty retzimed to fhe poUce station in "niufli" and ui a dn-uiken coiidition after consuniuig "arrack". He had rettinied to fhe police station to report to his superior officer as to what happened to fhe work which was entnisted to hrai. Under fhese circiiinstaaces, his behavior has to be regarded as aa act of gross miscondiict. It is difficult to appreciate how fhe Tribunal could persuade itsetfto 3( 1997) 2 Suprcme Court Cases 708 r 8 ^ '< 15. 16. take a contrary view. In view of fhe facts aad circuiastaEices offhis case it is not possible to say fhat fhe punishm.ent which was iaiposed zipon hun was highly excessive. The appeUate aufhority after considering his previous rccord aad after giviag hiai an opportunity to show cause agamst fhe proposed enhaaceiD.ent had passed fhe order of punishnieiit. Though fhe Tribunal has held fhat tilie enquiry was iiot condiicted by fhe appellate authority as required by the rules it has not been pointed oiit which requirenient of fhe rule had not been coiapUed with. The Tribiinal was, therefore, wrong on fhis couut also. In the resiilt, fhis appeal is aUowed aad fhe order passed by fhe Tnbunal is quashed and set aside. lu view of fhe facts and circurastaaces of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs^. For fhe reasons stated above, it is not necessary to go uito fhe qiiestion of delay fhat the petitioner has fiiled fhis petition after a period of aboiit 8 years. For fhe reasons stated above/ fhe writ petition stands disnlissed. No order as to costs. __--—-—-—~~~~^ i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri S Judge Bablu