' •"•c:... •; -al. "^ 'tifBiasgigjj ^v^ »»aMi :;;!;;. ^ '"^'K^ 1'-' ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR t>iyiSION^ENCH: HON. MR. OHIRENbRA MISHRA <& HON. MR. R.N. CHAN&RAKAR. JJ Writ Appeal No.19/2008 APPELLANTS (Respondents) State of M.P. (now C.6.) <& another RESPQN&ENT Versus Pohari Sharan Pandey JU&SMENT FOR CONSIDERATOIN y- ^<-oAta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR 3 q^-ea. POST FOR JUD6EMENT ON 1^-08-2009 Sd.'- R.N. Chandraitar Judge Sd/- J U D6 E &.08.2009 w. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. bHIREN&RA MISHRA. & HON. MR. R.N. CHANbRAKAR. JJ Writ Appeal No.19 OF Z008 (Writ Appeal Under Section 2 (l)of the C.6. Hiah Court (ADpeal to Division Bench) Act.2006 r/w Sub-Rule 157 of the C.G. l-1iah Court Rules. 2006 APPELLANTS (Respondents) Vs RESPON&ENT (Applicant) 1. State of M.P. (Now C.6.) Through: Collector, Rajnandgaon, M.P. Z.The Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, M.P. Pohari Sharan Pandey, S/o- Shri Rqjoallabh Pandey, Aged about 54 years, Ex-Constable, R/o Baldeo Bagh Road, Near Railway Bridge, Rajnandgaon, M.P. Present; Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Seneral & Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Senerdl for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent. JU&6MENT (belivered onl&/08/2009) & h ir^ndra Mishra. J l) The appellant-State has preferred this writ appeal against the order dated24.7.2007 passed in M.C.C. (S) No.34/2005 whereby review petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed and it has been held that the respondent herein is entitled to the reinstatement in service without consequential benefits, except back wages. With regard to payment of back wages liberty is resecved to the respondent to make r-epresentation before the author-ity concerned and the authority concerned has been directed to consider the representation on its own merit in accordance with law within a reasonable period after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent herein. 2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was posted as Constable in Police Station Kawardha. He was E^^i5%''?;^il®^^^?^^^^^^l^@^% ^'"w°5S"%i^^^^ py\'s <5^%^??^!^. ® I 1 '%. '^.// ^ \^iS1'^' ^ '^•^f:fe^~ served with a charge-sheet on llth/13t August, 1981 on the charge that he had submitted forged bills for claiming travelling allowance for a period between 6.12.1979 <& 29.2.1980 and fraudulently obtained amount against the said bills. After holding departmental enquiry, the charges against him were found to be proved and accordingly, he was dismissed fr-om the service vide order dated 25.1.1982. His appeal against the order of punishment was also dismissed on 28.1.2002. The respondent was also prosecuted for the same chargs '" Criminal Case No.257/92 under Sections 467, 471 & 420 of the IPC, however, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 25.11.1992 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. While acquitting the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1s Class has also observed that the prosecution was perhaps on account of malice on the part of the Police Station In-char9e Shri A.H. Khan towards the respondent herein. 3) Respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Class-I, Rajnandgaon challenginghis order of dismissal dated 25.1.1982, which was decreed by the civil Court vide judgment dated 17.8.1987. Against the said judgment dated 17.8.1987 an appeal was preferred by the State in the Court of the District Judge, Rajnandgaon. During the pendency of appeal, the same was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') and the tribunal vide its order dated 13.8.1998 allowed the appeal of the State and quashed the judgment & decree passed by learned Civil Judge Class-1 and thereby maintained the order of the Disciplinary Authority terminating the respondent from service. 4) Respondent filed a review petition before the tribunal on the ground that the respondent has been acquitted from the charges and his acquittal has attained finality. The fact of his acquittal could not be pointed out before the tribunal and The respondent is protected under the Regulation No.241 of the M.P. Police Regulations; Review petition was subsequently transferred to High Court due to abolition of the tribunal. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the State orgued that respondent was dismissed from service in^the year 1982 after conducting departmental enquiry, whereas he was acquitted from the criminat charges on 25.1.1992. Pendency of criminal case and departmental enquiry stand on different footing and acquittal of the respondent in criminal case does not vitiate the departmental enquiry. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the review petition of the respondent as the pleas taken in the review petition were not based on any matter which the respondent could not with due diligence discover and produce at earlier stage. Reliance is placed in the matter of Dr. Mohd. Yasin Vs. University of Kashmir, Srinagar and others r-eported in AIR 1974 SC 2341. Relying upon the judgmentof the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Bihari Lat Sidhana reported in (1997) 4SCC 385 it was argued that acquittal in criminal case does not entitle to automatic reinstatement and disciplinary action can be taken after acquittal and it is settled law that disciplinary action after acquittal is permissible. Placing reliance upon Govind Das Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 361 it was argited that the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal proceedings is based on the view that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal ')<— ^^:s'^fc:^^'l:^y case could not be made the basis for setting aside the order for termination of the services of the appellant passed in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry conducted for the charges leveled against the appellant. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that indisputably the charges frcyned against the respondent in the departmental proceedings and the charges for which the respondent was tried in the criminal court were same. The disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent on the basis of inquiry report. His appeal was further disnnissed by the appellate authority, however, the respondent's suit was decreed by the civil Court and his dismissal was set aside. The State preferred appeal against the judgment of the civil Court and the same was allowed by the tribunal and his dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority was confirmed. However, by the time the appeal was decided by the tribunal, the respondent was already acquitted from all the charges by the cn'minal court and the judgment of the criminal court was filed by the respondent before the tribunal but without considering the effect of acquittal in a criminal case and without considering the provisions of Regulation 241,the appeal preferred by the appellant-State was allowed, which was error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the respondent has made out the ground for review of the order dated 13.8.1998. Since the prosecution of the respondent in a criminal case and charges framed against him in the departmental proceedings were' same, the respondent was entitled for reinstatement as per Regular No.241 of the Police Regulations. 1 ••nnann 9SW >^^^->.. ^S^t^' 7) We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have perused the record as also order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8) In the judgments retied upon by the appellant-State and referred to above, the question of effect of Regulation No.241 of the Potice Regulations was not under consideration. Learned Single Judge elaborately considering the evidence adduced in the criminal prosecution of the respondent as well as evidence adduced in the departmental proceedings has held that the evidence and the documents before the criminal Court as well as the disciplinary authority were almost same except that some new witnesses like Shri P.N. Awasthi, S.D.0 (P), who was not S.&.O. (P) at the relevant time, was examined in the departmental enquiry. Learned Single Judge has also taken note of the observatibn of the criminal court that the prosecution was lodged on account of malice on the part of the Police Station In-charge Shri A.H. Khan towards the respondent herein. After considering all the aspects it has been held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit under Regulation No.241 of the M.P. Police Regulations, which is statutory in nature, as the acquittal of the respondent was not on any technical ground and The respondent's case was that of clear-cut acquittal and there was no finding against him that he was undesirable in service. 9) After carefully examining the material availabte on record and after going through the impugned order of learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion there is no substance in this writ appeat, the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. -4 IO)NO order as to costs. Sd..'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Roshan/- !