AF-K. HIGH COlinRT OF OIHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. (81 Bo. 34 of 2003 AppKcant Respodnents Pobari Shaian Paadey Versus The State ofM.P. (Now C.G.) & anotfaer M Post fbr order on ^Jwly, 2007. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge V.; t\ HI6U COURT OF CHI-IATrE5^1 ! AT BILA^UR M.C.C. (5^No;34 of 20» Applicant Pohciri Sharun Pandey; gged 54 years, Ex- Constsfete, s -c^" Shnftaj^ Pttndey, reaideint^i)f?Bi;ii|de»!ft®ggbftockl, near Rnih»dy Versus ..3,''5,£^31E?£K;21.£:1'.-'^.••'- ' 1. The, Stgt&tof MP.^e Ncw C.5.) through Cofle&fepRajn»id^iton,MJ>. 2. 'pte i^St^ierin-Bendent of Police Ro^Nmdgaon, •M^.E.,. ;';:'1;'.'^.:. '•^ . . -Lf ^ShNRffti!nPy^;Adv<>en^fo^'thepetitt^^ . S»nt.Anju Ahuja, t)eputy:6ov€;Jiclye»aEte^^^re^wden^ (SB:Morffil&Justice^i;^^ AIWLliSATION^ ^^^ SECTK^I ZZ/ GF THE A&MINISTOATIVE TftIOJNAfc. ACT. 19i8S F06 I^VIEW OF THE GRDER DATE&'tS 8 1998. PAS5E& IN T.A.NO. ^ 33430F:198&STAT&Cffi: M.P. VERSUS P<»1ARI SHARAN pANuey ' '....'-. :'^ , ORDER ffassed ofi^^-rfiisctayofjuly.2007) 1. The present a^}lieation seekyd review of'the wder dorted 13.8.1998 ^ pdssed l^? •ttie AAflBU^ Prode^ Admirustratiw Tribunai, Jabalpur m ;T.Ai N(fc3343/198gS(State ofM.P.&wiotiierVs.Pohri Sharon). 2. Tlw facts^^n petitioner was working os Mice ConsteKte m Ifie^fficeoflheSub &ivisional Officer (Police), l&^rdha; ~T1w; petitidner was isajed a charge-sheet on l4I/l3A1981^to tiie effect thffit- he had submitfed fw^ed bills for iclainiing trctwlmg^llofwcOTGe^;respectofthe period 6.12.1979 •to 29.2.1980 and frudulentty indugescl the gbvemment to rehsase the V amount against ttie said brtls. The clepnTt'maitnl enquiry was initiated against the petitioner ond he was dismissed frem service vide order dated 28.1.1982. The oppeal against the order of dismissal dated '5.1.1982 vws also dismissed on 28.1.2002. 3. The petitioner vms proseeuted for -the same dmrys in Crimmal Case No. 257/92 under the proyisions of Section 467. 471 wd 420 of the Indian Pena! Code. The Judickil Ma9istrate First Ctass, Rqjnandgaon vide jtidgment and order dated. 2S.11.1992 (Annexure A/l) acquitted the petitioner from above stnted chai^es on •rtie ground •that the prosecution has fcu'led to prove the chcfrges beyond reusonobfe doubts. It wus further observed that the prosecution was perhops on account of malice on the pcrt of the Polfce Sltition Incharge Siri A. H. an towards the petitioner. 4. The petitioner a!so field Civil 5uit No. 3-A/86 before •the Civil Judge. Class-I. Rajnanc^aon, chaRenging the order of dismissa! dated 25.1.1982. The aait »ws decreed vide ^jdgment dated 17.8.1987 m favour of the petitioner on -ttie ground thot the aifffeient opporhmity of henring was not afforded to the petittoner. The enquiry officer 5hri S.S.Chandro! de^>ite conykimt ogainst him, wcs alhnwsdi to compfete the enquiry. ^ 5. The respondent/State preferred an cppeal cgainst the judgment ond decree dated 17.8.2(X34 in the Court of District Judge, Rcyncnc^oon. During the pendency of the oppeal in the Court- of District Juc^e, the Modhya Pradesh Atiministrative Tribunaf cnme into existenee <aid the said cypeal stood tronsferred to the Tnbunal a'ld it was numbered as T.A.No. 3343^8. The Tribunia!. videorcterdatecl 13^998 {Annexure L^/3) crfk»Wedthe^pped <^ ^e^^o^^ dated 17,8^987,passed by the _ Civil Judge.Gloss-E was quad'ied. Consequeni-ly.'^-ftie order of the disciplinary authority terminating the service of the pestjtioner stood maintnined; 6. The petitioner has fited 1his review petition on the ground that , ; peyhaps the HTformation about ocqurttal of the petitioner from criminat charges, which att'aineci finali-ty, coufd not be poihted out before the Tribumil wrfien the petitiorwr is protected under R^ulation ^ No. 24iof the^^^^M^ Polite Regulations (for Aort *the Regulation^). 7, _ The petitwner has field this review qaplicution that pwhcys the facts wi-rti regord to the acquitta! of the petitioner in criminat case was not pointed out beforethe Tribunal though -the judgment of ac<piittal in crimina) case waS atready on record m the file when the case wos heard and decidad by the M.P. Admmistrative Tribuna!. 8. Shri Rorhm Pusty. leamed counsel oppeariry for ttie review petitioner submits Ihat 1here is error apparent on the -foce. of record as the acquittal of the petitioner m crimina! Court wasnot consider'ed by the Triixjna! while deciding the cppeat vide order dated 13.8.1998. Accordingjto lenmed counsel for the petitioner, the police regulations are stalutory in nature, as has been affirmed by tiie decisions of •the Mndhya Proclesh High Court, •H'tus Ifte petitioner is entitled to th^ , I' b^iefit of !teg8!ation 24t of 1+ie Regututions. Me furrtwr submits -rtKrt- " once the getitioner has been acquitted m criminal cose for the scune T-_: ffi ^ 4 charges, Ihe petitioner be rehstnted in service as a rute ond he should not be punished departinentalty when the offen<e for which he vms tried, constituted the sote ground ofpunishment. 9. Smt. An^i Ahuja, leamed counSeI appearir^ for -rfte respondents/ State wouid submit that the fcict of acquithal B'! the critninal Court was already brought mto the notice of -the Tribunal as that fonned the part of the records. The petitioner has been terminated after eonckicting proper deparhnental enquiry vn 1982. Thus -the acquittal jn criminal case vide order dated 25.11.1992 wilt have no effect 'vn the case. The petitioner belongs to a rfiscipfeied force wherein a person h<n'in9 sudi conduct is not desinAle m theservice. The fndmg of the criminal Court ss on the basis that the prosecution could not estabtish tiie case against the petittoner beyond reasonofcle doubts. 10. Having heard learned counse! for the parties and hnving perusad the pleadin9S and records appended thereto, it cppears that the petitioner twas foimd guilty in •the deparhnental enquiry cind tfte learned Tribunal has not considered -the facts of ocqui'ttal in cpiminal ease before eommg to the conclusipn that •the pimiAment pursuant to Ihe departmental enquiry imposed on the petitkmer was proper. The Tribunal has possed the judgment ond order ori 13.8.1998 whepeas Ihe petittoner was exonerated in criminal case on 25.11.1992. TTie petitioner ought to have pointed out -the facts of acquittel befone the Tribunul. It o^ears that the petitioner has fuiled to prochiee rtie same before -the Tribunat, -thMigh the ^idginent in cpiminal case was a part of record. ^' ...%1 .-'/ Y....- 11.1. YR%ulation 241 reodsas undep^ in "24t.;Cases ^ 9e<fwttv^^/^a poKseoffM^ h^ faeen tried flnd- acqyittBd by a criininat Sourt^ he must as a rute be reinsfated. He moy nbf^t^.punished <tepurtmen1wtly when the offence fer <^ieh heji^ tried constjtu^ the sote ground of puni?hmCTti^If,howevei'.1he a^iui't-Rjtl, iy<elher in the eourt of originat ^ i^ictiori OF ^;fl)»peaJ,.^ technical grounds;ORjythe^factsss1^K^ y^a*';1 -that his retBntion.. ^ m; ~ Sbwi'nm®"'?' sepwe^;- tS ; 'u'idesffiible, +lw Stqieni'i'teFii^nl'S 11^ ^ta!^ ;depku'fiin^*^? wgRtzsnTCe of his e6ncluct^BfS|®ife!SaiBin3'ttlfrsswl'WK^^Re^Ens^^w-Gefwro'L 241^ThefaHowin9;.instriictiorBo |mde(lown^^ o^tlTa^mt^sfpucy^and^su^pioraxiFfe^gt^ proceAirti '^befffttow^inenqi»(^'intfr:<tlleg^;fl[MScori<hjcton1hejxirt- of1he|»lie^i^n^mtt»eiroffida{capacity.* ^ 12^ The Hohlsle 5^renie Cour)';m the mutter-of tfrrion of India and " anothcr Vs. Biharil.aI Sidhana held asuwter:- "5. D- is true.that-the respondent was acquitfed by the criminal court- but acquittat does not cutomatioatty give him •the 'rie^it to be reinsta'ted into the service. It would stitl be open to the competent xwthority 1u ^ake decision whettier •the delmquent - : government servimt can^l^ tat<en;mto^ s disdplirwry ^ ^ Services yksstfwatf^.^Contr^ &^^eo5)RSiSfBS br undep •the Temperwy •^ - 5ervicel^te&-Admit1Bd)y,1tere^Mdenthadbeenworkin9 as a temporary goveFnment; seryant^before he was tept under aispension. The terminatitm ot^ei^mdKwt^^ -foctum that he.by •then, wcis t^der ^u^i&i^i<>!^i3Et^only«»»^-0f ctsscrfcing him as bei^ynder Sa^nM^ to be , ^ ~ pctssed l^^tsrMoes ricrt conSrtT^^ Mere cw^juittul ^ < <.- 6 of govemment employee does not (utomaticalfy entitle the govemment serwmt to reinstatement. As stated enrfier, it woutd be open to 1iie opproprwte competent au'thority to take a ctecision whether the erHpiiry mto the conduet is required to be done before directing reinstatement OP aiyroprtate actwn shouM be tiiken as per kn», if otherwise, flwailcAite. Since the respondent is w»lya temporary yvemment ssrwnt, the power being maitobte under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is alwcys <yen to the competent authority to inyoke the said po»»erond termtwte •tfie services of the emptoyee instead of conductwg the enqury or to continue in service a govemment servwit accused of defalcation of public money. Reinsta-tement wouh:! be a chcrter for him to inAilge with iinpuni-ty fti misoppropriotion of pubtic money. 13. The Honlsle Supreme Court in •the mater of 6. tt. Tank Vs. State of St(jarat & another? udierem •the cas& of Unipri of Indkt and onother Vs. Bihari Lal Sidhcna (supra) was not considered, held as uncter:- "32. In our opinion, aich fncts and eyidence in the deparhnent as »»ellas crimina! proceedings wene the saBne without there being ony iota of difference, the oppettott dioutd succeed. The distinction whieh is usunlly proved between the departmental and criminat proceedings on the basis of the approadi ond burden of proof wrould not be (ipplicable in 'the instant cnse. , Through finding recorded in -riie domest'ic enquiry was not found to be valkl by the Courts below, when there was on hononible acquitta! of the employee Airing -the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal. the same. requires to be torf<en note of and the dedsion in Paul Anlhony's case (aym) will cyply. We, ttierefore, hold that appeal fikd by -rtie oppellant deserves to be aliowed." ^l'1 s- 14. 3ji the oase. m hand the ehnrgein the eriminal <nse os wetl as in the deparhnental enquiry was one ond •the same. The alteged forged police rQjnanicha sanha wos produced before the Magistrcrte. Siri A. H. yhsm.^hs^en^T^ was ata> exammed and cross examined. The Magistrate had found •that the witness 5hri P. R. 5ao Iwd ctdmitted the alteged forged brlls as genuine. The then S.&.O.p) Shri G. R. Shrivastava alsosupported 1he case of the petitioner and the crimmal Court found -rtiiat -Ihe prosecutton twas lodg^l on aecount of the molsce ; ^^ Bn the part' of •tiie Police Statioh Sichnrge 5h*i A. H. on towards the petitioner. Si •rfie d^mrhisental enqUiry Shri P. R. Sao end Shri A. H Khan were also exammed. The then S.&.6.0*) was note?annmec|, .under whoni thepetitioner had actually wopked, at the reievant time but other 5.D.O.(P) Shri P. N. Awasthi wis exomined. Thus, it is found that the evidence and the documents produced before the criminal ^ Cour!', cewe.V.as hefore Ihe enquiry nuthority, we.re atmost the sams, exeept thdt some new witnesses Iike Siri P. N. Awosthi. S.&.0.(P),who was not S.&.O.P) at the retevant time, were exammed in the departmental enquiry. The petittQnar is entitled to the benefit under Regulation 241 of the Reyjitations, whidi is statutory in nnture. Regulation 241 eleacly mondates that *hen a poiice offieer has been ' tried <md acquitt-ed in a crini'inal Court, he must. as n rule, be rajnslated. He may not be punirfied dq^art'mentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of pu'iishnient. In •Hie case of acquittat on technienl grounds. the departmental cognizance of mjsconduct may be takenafter obtaining the scnction < ^.... of tiw In^ctpr Swero! of Police.In Itw pnese^ there w»as clear cufexoneration (nd -rtiere was no fincKr^agajnst.the petitioner that he was undesipabte in service. ti5.X 1;^S ce'Sff^fflSK'Banthe reasoris mentioned tierem above, the review o^ic<rtioh?is tilteWed^ The petitioner is entitled to the rehistortement 2 ;m servsce withoyt eon^quential benefits, exoept bqiek wcges. t6, NotwVu'.^wtlfrregard to the poymavt of bnd< Wagegthe same coaTnot bedecidedas ho foundation ho^ been laid with regard to •the gainfu! enyloymeiiy of the pefitiorier elsewhere, during this period. The petitioner wns terminated from servics on 25.11.1982, what woutd be ttie fimncrdl implications, there is no materiol ayajlcble for taking amy ; decision twth regard to the gront of'back'uages. Accordingly, the ~ petitionep-is grcBrtsd liberty to make^a representartwn before •the cuthorities concemed, poin+m9 outi detaits about his gainful employment sisewhere nnd other relewant ma'teriais for npproprkite reiief. The Stdte Authorities rfial! consider 1+ie representation. on its own merits, in accordance with kiw, within d reasonabte period, after having afforded -the spporhjnity of hearing to the petitwner. In tfie facts end circumstances of the cose there shall be no order as to costs. C19^)4S("C3851 (2006 AIft SCW Z7Q9f ThakiF Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge :y