IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4772 of 2010 1. DEVENDRA NATH SAHNI S/O LATE PARMESHWAR SAHNI R/O MOH SIKANDARPUR KUNDAL, P.S.NAGPUR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE REGISTRAR CIVIL COURT, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 4.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who was a Clerk in the Judgeship of Muzaffarpur and superannuated on 31.1.2005 is aggrieved by the denial of 2nd A.C.P. to him by order dated 17.9.2009 contrary to the recommendation made in his favour on 16.5.2008. After the petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2005, a departmental proceeding was started against him for certain missing records from the record room of disposed cases. It culminated in an enquiry report dated 18.3.2008. The enquiry officer opined that he was negligent in discharge of his duties, may be warned or mild punishment may be imposed. The District Judge on 16.5.2008 as the Disciplinary Authority ordered that since the petitioner had retired, no further action was required. Thereafter the concerned committee at the District level considered his case along with others 2 for grant of A.C.P. at column-V and noticed that he had passed the departmental examination prescribed by this Court and has also been exonerated of the charges levelled against him and therefore recommended to be considered for grant of second A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 24.8.2000. It has been denied by the impugned order on the premise that an F.I.R. was directed to be lodged against him which is acknowledged to have subsequently been done. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that grant of A.C.P. was a service benefit arising out of discharge of duties. Departmental proceedings were a measure of enforcing discipline in service. If he was exonerated in the departmental proceeding, he is entitled to the grant of A.C.P. The institution of the First Information Report is an entirely different issue. The purpose of a departmental proceeding is different than a Police case. If the petitioner had been punished in the departmental proceeding issues may or may not have been entirely different. Counsel for the State submitted that since an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner on 20.10.2009, he is not eligible to be considered for grant of A.C.P. 3 Disciplinary proceedings are held to maintain discipline in service. If a delinquent is punished in relation to service, claim for any service benefit has then to be adjudicated in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer having recommended exoneration by warning only which is not a punishment. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any different view of the matter and decided to accept the report. If the petitioner stood exonerated in the departmental proceeding, the question of denying him any service dues simply does not arise. That there may be a Police case against him is an entirely different issue. It has rightly been submitted that the purpose of the two proceedings are entirely different. The recommendation dated 16.5.2008 is reasoned. The subsequent institution of the F.I.R., to this Court, does not demolish that reason. It must be kept in mind that what the petitioner claimed is not a substantive promotion but only certain increments as a anti stagnation measure. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the recommendation dated 16.5.2008. 4 Nothing in the present order be construed as any observation or opinion in so far as the criminal prosecution is concerned which shall proceed on its own merits in accordance with law. The order dated 17.9.2009 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)