Gurpal Singh vs High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan

2. We may briefly advert to the relevant facts on the basis of which the petitioner claims the aforesaid relief.

3. On 28th December, 1979, the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. He served on the said post till 28th July, 1980. On the very next day, i.e. 29th July, 1980, he was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service and joined as Judicial Magistrate First Class. For sometime, he remained posted at Banswara as Judicial Magistrate. During this period, his judgments were graded as above average and integrity as “beyond doubt”. In the inspection report, it was further remarked that “his behaviour with members of the Bar, litigants and the persons coming to the Court needs improvement”. It appears that he was not on best of terms with the local Bar, which led to his transfer.

4. On 24th November, 1985, at about 10.30 p.m., a dead body was found near Ajmer Pulia on the railway track in the city of Jaipur. The dead body was identified as that of one Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta, Advocate. A ‘Marag’ (death) case was registered on 24th November, 1985, at Serial No. 35/85 at Police Station GRP, Jaipur. It appears that the local bar association of which the deceased was a member protested that proper investigation was not being conducted about the manner in which Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta was found dead on the railway track. The members of the Bar Association insisted that his death was result of some foul play.

On 11th December, 1985, that is about 20 days after the incident, wife of the deceased gave a written complaint, alleging that the Petitioner was involved in the murder of her husband. In her written complaint, she alleged that her husband had informed her about three months prior to the incident that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac for exercising his influence with the high-ups, in securing the appointment of the deceased as a member of Board of Revenue. She claimed that the money which was paid to the petitioner was arranged by her deceased husband by selling a plot of land. He had also borrowed money from her father and other relatives. Inspite of having paid the aforesaid money, her husband was not provided any appointment. Consequently, her husband had been insisting that the petitioner return the amount unnecessarily paid to him. She claimed that the petitioner had agreed to return the money and asked her husband to meet at a pre-arranged place. Her husband left home at 5.00 p.m. on 24th November, 1985 and did not return. She, therefore, concluded that the petitioner must have killed her husband on account of the dispute over money.

5. Upon coming to know about the complaint made by the wife of the deceased, the petitioner himself went to the Police Station on 18th December, 1985 and offered to join the investigation. He requested the police to complete the investigation as soon as possible, as in the meantime, he has been transferred and had to join at Vallabhnagar. In the meantime, the local bar association continued the agitation against the inaction of the police. The lawyers resorted to strike and the work at the Courts was paralysed for many days to come. The situation was so grave that when the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail came up for hearing before the High Court on 20th December, 1985, members of the Bar Association did not allow the advocate of the petitioner to argue the case. The petitioner relies on the order passed by M.B. Sharma, J. on 20th December, 1985, which is as under:-

7. Upon acquittal by the trial court, the petitioner submitted a joining report on 6th May, 2002 to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court. The request made by the petitioner remained under consideration of the High Court from the said date. The decision was deferred to await the result of the appeal, if any, preferred against the acquittal of the petitioner. It appears that an appeal was filed by the CBI, which, however, came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 27th September, 2005.

9. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that instead of revoking the order of suspension, the High Court may initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. At that stage, the petitioner was only about 2 years short of the age of superannuation. He, therefore, moved the present Writ Petition, seeking immediate revocation of the order of suspension and consequential benefits. On 8th May, 2006, it was brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the writ petition, the High Court has initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, but no fresh order of suspension has been passed. It was, therefore, submitted that direction be issued to the High Court to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. This Court issued notice on the Writ Petition and also on the application for ex-parte stay. Subsequently, the matter came up for hearing on 25th January, 2007 when this Court directed that the matter be posted for final disposal in the last week of March, 2007. On 4th January, 2008, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the enquiry proceedings were in progress against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court directed the High Court to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks and submit its report.

14. In this respect, a notice dated 25th April, 2011 was sent to the petitioner by the Registrar (Admn.), directing him to file a reply, and remain present before the aforesaid Committee on 5th May, 2011. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 2nd May, 2011 and appeared before the Committee on 5th May, 2011. Thereafter on 16th May, 2011, the Committee passed the following order:

26. The only issue that needs to be resolved at this stage is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled only to the subsistence allowance as already paid to him or full salary and allowances, in view of his acquittal in the criminal case and the exoneration in departmental proceedings. Related to the aforesaid issue would be a consequential issue of notional promotion from the date an officer junior to him was promoted in the Rajasthan Judicial Service and the consequential entitlement to the emoluments on the promotional post, which in turn would determine the amount of suspension allowance and the other retiral benefits.

46. ………..The prosecution has failed to prove firstly that there was any murder and secondly that the accused is the one who committed it. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

42. We are of the considered opinion, having regard to the sequence of events narrated above, that it would be unjust to deny the salary to the petitioner with effect from the date the appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. We see no cogent reason as to why it was necessary to continue the suspension of the petitioner during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. There was no distinction between the facts or the evidence relied upon in the criminal trial as well as the department proceedings. This apart, the petitioner had been acquitted of any involvement in the crime of murder. Whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Rule 54, it was necessary for the High Court to pass a detailed and reasoned order as to whether the period of suspension was wholly unjustified. Undoubtedly, the power under Rule 54 is discretionary but such discretion has to be exercised reasonably and by taking into consideration the material relevant to the decision. Upon acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal charges, it was no longer necessary to keep him under suspension during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly under Rule 54, as directed by this Court in the order dated 5th April, 2011. In our opinion, the suspension of the petitioner ought to have been revoked upon acquittal by the High Court even during the pendency of the departmental enquiry.

46. We, therefore, partly allow the writ petition. We reject the submissions of Mr. Calla that the suspension of the petitioner was rendered wholly unjustified upon acquittal by the trial court. We also reject the submissions of Mr. Calla that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly unjustified during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. We, however, hold that the continued suspension of the petitioner during the pendency of the departmental proceedings was wholly unjustified. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to full pay and allowances from 27th September, 2005, i.e. the date of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court onwards. We further hold that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion notionally from the date when an officer junior to him was promoted. We, therefore, direct the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion (if he otherwise satisfies the requirements as per the rules) from the date when a person junior to him was considered and promoted to the next higher post. Let such a decision be taken by the High Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. We further direct that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, such as salary and other allowances by treating him on duty with effect from the date the appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court and after fixing his last pay drawn correctly. The consequential benefits shall be paid to him with 6% interest from the date of the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court on 27th September, 2005. The enhanced retiral benefits shall be released to him within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.

47. Assuming that, the Rajasthan High Court wanted to conduct its own departmental enquiry after the acquittal of the petitioner being confirmed by the Delhi High Court, his suspension during that period was wholly uncalled for because of which he unnecessarily suffered and had to litigate further. We, therefore, award costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner to be borne by the respondent High Court.

November 27, 2012.