1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 2002 Dist.: SANGLI Ashok Shamrao Jadhav, since deceased, through his L.Rs. Rukmini Ashok Jadhav & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The Superintendent of Police, Sangli, & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodke for the petitioners Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 13, 2008 P. C.:- This is a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 146 of 2001 on 26th July, 2001. 2. The Writ Petition was originally filed by one Mr. Ashok Shamrao Jadhav. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, he died, and his legal heirs were brought on record. Mr. Jadhav was working in the Police Department as a Constable. A case was registered against 2 him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and consequentially, charge-sheet was filed against him, and he faced the trial before the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption at Sangli in Special Case No. 5 of 1992. It was alleged that Mr. Jadhav was arrested while he was accepting a bribe of Rs.500/- through a trap. The Special Judge, after a full-fledged trial, acquitted Mr. Jadhav on 24th February, 1999. During the period he was facing the trial, the Department kept him under suspension. After he was acquitted, the Department reinstated him by an order dated 15th April, 1999. That order merely stated that Mr. Jadhav was reinstated and his suspension order revoked. 3. Thereafter, the Department passed another order dated 29th January, 2001, directing that the period of suspension of Mr.Jadhav shall not be treated as a period on duty. Mr.Jadhav challenged this order in the O.A. The O.A. was dismissed. Therefore, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal misdirected itself by applying the test of the cases in which persons were acquitted of the charges, but were punished in 3 departmental proceedings. There is no doubt that even if a person is acquitted in a criminal trial, may be punished departmentally for misconduct, as the proof needed to prove an offence in a criminal Court of law may not be needed to prove misconduct in a departmental inquiry. But in the present case, the Department at no point of time found Mr.Jadhav guilty of misconduct, as they did not hold any inquiry at any point of time against him. On his acquittal by the criminal Court, Mr. Jadhav was reinstated, and after few months, the order impugned before the Tribunal was passed. As such, there is no finding of the Department that Mr. Jadhav was guilty of misconduct. The order passed by the Department, which was assailed before the Tribunal, gives only one reason for treating the period of suspension as not on duty, and that reason being that Mr. Jadhav had not got a clear acquittal from the trial Court. The trial Court found that there was no evidence on the basis of which the accused could have been convicted. It found that the material evidence was suppressed, and those independent witnesses, who were present at the time of occurrence, were not even produced before the Court as witnesses. The trial Court made the observation, “This lacuna adds to the deficiencies of the prosecution case and renders it unbelievable. It cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.” After finding that the 4 prosecution was not able to prove the case, the trial Court proceeded with examining the plea of the defence and agreed with the plea of the defence that Mr. Jadhav was framed. Therefore, the Department was not right to come to a conclusion that Mr. Jadhav had not got a clean acquittal. For these reasons, we do not find that either the order of the Department or the order of the Tribunal can be sustained. 5. Both orders, dated 26th July, 2001 and 29th January, 2001, are quashed, and it is directed that the period of suspension of Mr. Jadhav be treated as on duty for all purposes, pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits. 6. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.S. SHINDE, J.