The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of acquittal in the criminal case to the departmental proceedings and the requirement for a fair and proper inquiry against the plaintiff.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.01.2015 rendered by the learned ADJ-05, Central Distt., Tis Hazari Court in RCA No.9/2010, whereby the learned ADJ has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/UOI against the judgment passed by the learned SCJ cum RC (Central), Delhi in Suit No.930/06/82 filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and declared the departmental inquiry and the consequent penalty imposed upon the appellant to be vitiated on account of breach of the principles of natural justice and violation of rules. Consequently, the appellant was directed to be reinstated with all benefits and he was deemed to be in service. The First Appellate Court reversed the said findings and dismissed the suit of the appellant.

3. The brief facts are that the appellant/plaintiff was employed as a Security Guard (SG) at the CISF. At the relevant time, he was posted at Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. at Rishikesh, Haridwar. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 18.09.1979 alleging that he had abandoned his duty post without permission of competent authority on the night of 4/5.09.1979 and obstructed other SGs in performance of their duty. He had prevailed upon SG K.R. Sharma and SG H.C. Mishra to leave their duty post, and go to canteen for taking tea against their wishes, as well as passed on the plant material on the other side of the wall in connivance with SG Rajinder Parshad and SG Shyam Sunder.

4. The appellant replied to the said charge-sheet, which was not found to be satisfactory. The same was followed by a departmental inquiry against the appellant and the co-delinquents. The inquiry found the appellant guilty. The said inquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The appellant was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal also failed. Consequently, he filed the suit in question to seek a declaration in respect of the inquiry and the disciplinary action taken against him. On the third charge, namely, the appellant was also criminally charged, and the same resulted in his acquittal.

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

i) Whether the punishment after acquittal in the criminal case is bad?

ii) Whether the plaintiff was given full opportunity during enquiry proceedings?

iii) Whether necessary and relevant documents were supplied to the plaintiff? If not, its effect?

iv) Whether the appellate authority decided the appeal according to the rules?

v) Whether a fair and proper enquiry was held against the plaintiff? If not, its effect?

vi) Whether the order dated 28.4.81 is illegal, null and void?

vii) Whether the notice under Section 80 is not valid or legal?

viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?

ix) Relief.

6. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and, consequently the suit was decreed.

7. Before the appellate court, the appellant relied upon the following decisions:

a) Shri Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 1983(1) Services Law Reporter 626,

b) Shri S.N. MukherjeeVs. Union of India, JT 1990 (3) S.C. 630

c) P.P Gopalan Vs. DIG & Anr.,1986 LAB. I. C. 1980.

8. The First Appellate Court, while not disputing the propositions of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the appellant, observed that the application of the decisions would depend on the facts of each case. The First Appellate Court then proceeded to consider each of the issues 1 to 6 and 8 together. So far as reliance placed on the judgment of his acquittal by the appellant is concerned, the First Appellate Court has held that the appellant had been charged on the first two counts only, and no charge was framed in respect of the allegation of passing of the plant material in connivance with the other SG. The decision of the criminal court acquitting the appellant was, therefore, hel