‘ yU in mr- LN" éUUih§§i§J§E un'unn‘rlaran‘ 5%! n’r r-uu D§LIL1§FJFR Anmzln C§=§H§TWS$§RH WP. N§L277 OF zuuz . E5tate cf Chhamsgarh thraugh the Secretary, Min§$try 0f Home; (Shhattiwam, Ra¥pur (Chhat‘tEgarh) . Dimctcr Genemi cf Fwce, Raipur Chh&i‘£isgarh) Dy. Inspector Generai Gaf'Fafise Raipur Region, RaigauEf’Chhat’iisgarh) . Supdi Qf Palice, DmgjChhawsgarh} 9ETiTiGNER$ . (FIE$P§N§§NT$§ 1., fqbai Khan aged about 43 years, $/o Ahmad Hussein, Caste Muslim, residwt 0f Road NQA, Kasaa’iwm, msirmt Burg (Chhat2%$ga§'h) ‘ {terminated Head Constable’NO82 ‘ii’cm Pmkze Linés, Burg (Chhai‘tisgarh)] hJ‘ RE$FQNQ§N? (£PPLK3IANT) ’?9RQ?QRMA RE$PQMQENT Regisérar, Madhya Prade$h State Admin§$trative Tribunal, Raipus’ Bemh, Raipur(Chha ‘ afh) WRIT PE'ETI'mN {AMBER ARTiCié 22$!22? GE TEE CgNSTITBTiGi‘J QF iNEDié; §N ariEHK35‘E lUKi 4 ‘ ( A m ' \XW JSTICE .H.N KUR NGA C HON'B E S RI JUS ! ICE FAKHBUQDI&. Dr. S'rafe l pefitioners. Heard. i.- N.K. Shukia, Addl. The S'ra‘re has prefarred ‘l'his peti‘rion agains‘f ‘rhe order dafed 9-7‘2001 pa The ‘M.P; Sfa're Adminis ra‘l’ive Tribunal, Raipur on fhe ground ‘rha‘r sed in O.A. No. 10Z2/2000 by Rai‘p‘ur Bench , the Tribunal was not justified in directing the respo’ndenf No.1 to reins'rafe fhe services of respondenf No.1 from ‘rhe date of dismissal and pay fhe eMir-e arrears of ‘fhe sala Briefly sfafed ‘I'he fact s of the case are that on 241-1996 respondent No.1 had Tried fo oufrage fine modesty-of one Devki Bai, h. The report of the incident was on the same day. A criminal case ered against the respondent No.1 in ite First Class Durg and charge sheet é 354 of I.P.C. but the charge [11%W / sister of constable Prem Sin lodged at police station Dur bearing No.74/I999 was regi the Court of Judicial Magistrc A was filed under Sections 443 Advocate 6eneral, . 3%,?” for the ry from the date of dismissal. A, XI-HC-22 W m W w9&7¥/:2w% m m mmmm mmftwm $mm 30-4-2002 DIVISIO B NCH P ISI 6 OF ' HON'B SHRI #j: XI—HCvZZ fhe \xEw X Learned counsel a peering for the Silage confended Tha‘r The order passed The Tribunal is noT susTainable. The Tribunal has 'oTed The case of The rival parties, which is reflecTed from paragraphs 2 To v8 of The impugned order. The poinT for con ideraTion before The Tribunal was wheTher The impugned order by virTue of which ‘The services of The respon enT No.1 have been TerminaTed, is liable To be quashed. e. Tribunal ThereafTer, noted The facTs in paragraph 11 under: 12 of-iTs order, which read'as 11.- IT’ is. n undispuTed facT ThaT The applicanT h s been TerminaTed in view of a dep, rTmenTal enquiry held' againsT The app icanT. IT is perTinenT To noTe ThaT deparTmenTal enquiry was held again T The applicanT wiTh av charge ThaT The applicanT had ouTraged [n'ieém h ‘ XI—HC-zz- m mm mw mmw (33 WW W$W€R ammanéw regis1'ered as O.A. No, 072/2000 claiming relief 'Hmf The Termination order dam 16-10-1997 be quashed and he be reinsfa'l’ed in service. he claim was denied by The 5mm. W WEB I w 2;..“ggi3xgwi . m 20° m E$M,~‘* , H AA ~HC-22 by the Crimina Cour? ugains‘r *Hi applicnnf for ou‘r‘raging fhe modesty of H is provedfhaf rhe en terminand as resulf of the d par‘rmenfnl enquiry or an ac+ for which he has been hcquHi’ed‘~ A by ‘rhe compe‘re’f criminu‘ Court. Smf. Devki Sui, applicnn+ has 12. From puu nl of fhe judgmmf of Judicial Magis haw Is1' Ciass Dung, i1 is also clear fh 1' “the applican'r has ho? on fhe ground of benefii of dovibf but 'rhe oc'quiffal of +he opplicon+.is clean acquifrol. In ' fhony Vs Bhoro‘r 60H Mines Ltd. o anomer; AIR 1999 5c 1416, Hon'bte tho Supreme Court has held that -'D portmental proceedings and criminal ‘ Capt. M.Paul e - Based on identical set of‘ fac - Evioence in both proceedings common - Employee FiloW s e n s t XI-HCv22 acquitted in cr.jimirml case - said order of acquif‘ral ca conclude depar‘rmenfal Order o‘f dismissal already pass before decisionfé¥ criminal case Han'ble fhe S preme Cour-1’ in Babuiai Vs Sfa‘re of ryana & others; 1991 SCC -(L&-S) 48 has'held fha‘r- Service" Terminafed p rsuance 1’0 criminai procezdings ding. 'aga‘ins'r The employee - af‘r r acquiftal ordered by criminal Cour-f he is enfi'rled to be reins‘ra‘red in s rvice. proceedings- iable f0 be se‘l' asida. The Tribunal fer considering the maferial submi‘H'ed and 'i'he deci‘ ion of 1he Apex Cour-f in fhe case of Ca r. M.Pau/ Anfh s B/mraf 50M Mine: Lf anafher reporied in A 1999 5.C. 1416, has passed ‘rhe impugned order direc‘l' n9 Thev51'a1-e to take back the respondent No 1 in ser ice and-reinstate him in services from the date of dis issal The Tribunal has also directed the State to p y the entire arrears of salary to [113%W e a n f n V d I X§~HC—22 the respondent No.1 'rom The dafe of dismissal. The Tribunal has also consi fHaraaad f wherein H has be heid that servicgigkherminafed pursuance To criminal ered th¢ case of Babylgl V: 5m” eported in 1991 SCC (L6t5) 488 -:.f' Having heard 1'he learned counsel for The p‘efii'ioner and considered the jud. men-r of fhe Apex Cour'r in Capt M. Paul An‘rhony (supra) a d in Babulal (supra), we are of fhe opinion fha‘r no case ,_ or inierference of 'rhis Court in _ exercise of ifs supervi ory jurisdicfion under Articie 227. of’fhe Cons'l'ifufion of n‘dia is made our. The pe'rii'ion fails and is accordingly dism ssed. ' Learned Addi‘l’ion i Advdca'l'e General subinii‘i-ed fha'i' fif'reen days fime m order. be granfed fo comply wi‘i'h the is granied fo ‘rhe Sfaie 1'0 comply Time as prayed fo ibunal, which shall be repor'l'ed 1'0 wifh fhe order of fhe l, /“ ihe Tribunal. [ni%W r o : e praceedings pending‘ngninsf fhe employees- affer acqui ‘ral ordered by Criminal Courf, he is enfi‘ried ‘ro be reins? fed in service. o r _w . xxwahw m: «g aam gag,»wvmio£ N8 g iimgaag Wmjni magma +o i5+ :nm can: u+n+an n¢o<n 4:? 3:12.. mu mmuammunm. n .7 ma? , \ mm—xrEaaE wxucanm \‘\\",: \} l) 1 _.\". mQ. Qmn .Emmnm / m