The acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, which require a lower standard of proof, and the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia, the action of the respondent authorities in imposing the penalty of stoppage 5 increments with cumulative effect in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner has also challenged the dismissal of the departmental appeal which was preferred against the order of penalty. For ready reference, the relief prayed for in this writ petition is extracted hereinbelow-

“Under the facts and circumstances, it is prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, called for the records, issue Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued for setting aside and quashing the impugned order of penalty dated 02.12.2008 imposing penalty of stoppage of 5 (three) increments with cumulative effect passed by the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure – VII and WT message dated 2/11/2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 dismissing the Appeal vide Annexure XII and/or as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued to cancel/ rescind or otherwise for bearing from giving effect to the impugned order of penalty dated 02.12.2008 imposing penalty of stoppage of 5 (three) increments with cumulative effect passed by the respondent No. 4 vide Annexure – VII and WT Message dated 2/11/2019 and/or any appropriate writ of like nature or directions should not be issued to give full and effective relief(s) to the petitioner on perusal of record and upon the hearing causes shown by the respondent would be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass any other or further order/orders as your lordship may deemed fit and proper.”

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that he was working as a Constable (Armed Branch) with the Assam Police and at the relevant time was posted at Dibrugarh. However, in connection with his involvement in a criminal case being Dibrugarh PS Case No. 160/2007 under Section 384/420 of the IPC for which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 21.05.2007. The petitioner was already placed under suspension in connection with his involvement in the Dibrugarh PS Case No. 497/2006 under Section 384 IPC. The petitioner was already placed under suspension for his involvement in another Police Case. The suspension order was however revoked due to exigencies of service.

3. The petitioner had accordingly replied to the said show-cause notice on 24.05.2007. The said reply was however not found satisfactory and accordingly, DP No. 05/2007 was drawn up against him by appointment of an enquiry officer. The enquiry was accordingly held and the findings were forwarded to the petitioner vide second show-cause notice dated 18.10.2008. As regards the allegation, though it was admitted that he was arrested in the police case, he replied that he was not involved. The explanation was not found to be reasonable or acceptable and accordingly, the charge was held to be proved. The same was followed by the impugned order dated 02.12.2008 whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of stoppage of 5 nos. of increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was restricted to the subsistence allowance only.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned CJM, Dibrugarh in GR Case No. 640/2007. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to the SP, Dibrugarh dated 16.07.2011 to revoke the penalty order. The petitioner had thereafter, submitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North-Eastern Region on 24.10.2019. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The same was however rejected as it was filed after a long gap of 10 years which is beyond the prescribed period of 6 months under Rule 66 of the Assa