SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Nelson Sailo, J.
Kommik Kadu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 56 of 2015
Decided On : 05-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
I. Choudhury, Advocate, S. Bishwa Karma, Advocate, K. Lollen, Advocate, L. Nochi, Advocate, Kinnyalollen, Advocate, C.D. Thongchi, Advocate, S. Tapin, Advocate

The court emphasized that it would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a criminal proceeding.

Headnote:

Misappropriation - Departmental Proceedings - IPC 379, 403, 408, 409 - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, who was accused of misappropriating funds while serving as a Cashier in the Police Headquarter. The court found that the charges in the criminal investigation and the departmental proceeding were identical and similar. The criminal investigation concluded that the allegations against the petitioner could not be established. The court held that it would be unjust to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a criminal proceeding.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Cashier in the Police Headquarter, was accused of misappropriating funds. The criminal investigation concluded that the allegations against the petitioner could not be established.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges in the criminal investigation and the departmental proceeding were identical and similar. It held that it would be unjust to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a criminal proceeding.

Issues: The court considered whether the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service could be sustained, given that the criminal investigation concluded that the allegations against the petitioner could not be established.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive to allow the findings in the departmental proceedings to stand when the case against the petitioner could not be established in a criminal proceeding.

Final Decision: The impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service were set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service. However, the petitioner was not entitled to any back wages.

JUDGMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bishwa Karma learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, who appears for all the respondents.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was serving in the post of Assistant in the Police Headquarter and attached as Cashier in the Office of the Director General of Police, Itanagar since the year 2013. On 24.12.2009, on the request of Constable A. Keot, the petitioner went to the State Bank of India (SBI), Itanagar and found him to have already reached the SBI and was standing in the cash counter. They encashed the DCR from the cash counter and withdrew an amount of Rs. 12,98,628/-. Constable A. Keot asked her to carry the cash amount in her local bag and accordingly, as instructed, she kept Rs. 98,628/- with her and the remaining amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was kept in the local bag that she brought. Thereafter, Constable A. Keot asked her to leave the Bank and go with one Head Constable D. Das and that he himself would go with one Head Constable M. Reba. Thereafter, when the petitioner and Head Constable D. Das were about to leave the Bank by the official vehicle (Gypsy) bearing registration No. AR-01A 4621, Constable A. Keot suddenly boarded the vehicle stating that Constable M. Reba will not go to office from the Bank and so, the petitioner along with Constable A. Keot and Head Constable D. Das left the Bank with the cash and proceeded towards the Office of the Superintendent of Police (Telecom) [S.P (T)] at Chimpu, Itanagar.

3. On their way back, all three (3) of them went to Akashdeep to have a cup of tea. On reaching the tea-stall, Constable A. Keot asked the petitioner to get down from the vehicle to have tea and that he will take care of the money bag, which was kept in the vehicle. Accordingly, the petitioner went to a bookshop to purchase a pen and thereafter, went to the tea-stall to have tea. Constable A. Keot then asked the petitioner where the money bag was and to which, the petitioner said that the same was kept inside the vehicle under his care. Both the petitioner and Constable A. Keot then went to the vehicle and found the money bag missing. Despite all efforts, they could not find the money bag and therefore, the petitioner informed the police over telephone about the incident and soon after, lodged an FIRon 24.02.2009 itself before the Officer-in-Charge (O/C), Itanagar Police Station. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S Case No. 219/2009 under Section 379 IPC was registered and the Itanagar Police arrested the petitioner and Constable A. Keot and Head Constable D. Das. The petitioner was then released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Itanagar on 27.12.2009. Because of the incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the S.P (T) vide order dated 24.12.2009 with immediate effect.

4. After the petitioner was suspended, the S.P (T) on 05.08.2011 lodged two (2) FIRs before the O/C, Itanagar Police Station. In the first FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner while working as Cashier in the Office of the S.P (T) failed to deposit VAT/Entry Tax amounting to the Rs. 25,42,082/-, which was deducted from various firms and that the amount was to be deposited in Government accounts through Treasury Challan. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S Case No. 183/2011 under Section 403/408/409 IPC was registered.

5. In the second FIR, which was also dated 05.08.2011, it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 2,29,873/- was entered in the cash book as having been paid to M/S Arunachal Agency House but the amount was not received by the said firm as per intimation letter dated 05.08.2011. Accordingly, Itanagar P.S Case No. 184/2011 under Section 409 IPC was registered. Pursuant to the filing of the two (2) FIRs, the petitioner was arrested on 05.08.2011 but was released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Itanagar vide order dated 06.08.2011.

6. The petitioner was then served with a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top