1992 Supreme(Raj) 899
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Mohammed Umar - Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3853 of 1991.
Decided On : 7-10-1992
A disciplinary authority cannot proceed against an employee departmentally on the same facts after a finding of not guilty has been recorded by a competent court in a criminal case involving the same act.
Headnote:
ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - PUNISHMENT - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - REASONED ORDER - RECOVERY OF COST OF WIRE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), was acquitted in a criminal case involving the theft of 800 meters of copper wire. Despite the acquittal, the RSEB initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect and ordered the recovery of Rs. 3288/- from his salary. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that once he had been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was not open to the Disciplinary Authority to have initiated disciplinary proceedings and to have punished him for the same charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that once a competent court records a finding of not guilty against an employee in respect of an act involving a criminal offense, it is not open to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the employee departmentally on the same facts and pass an order of punishment by holding the employee guilty. The court further held that the order of punishment passed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eye of law as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the respondent had not recorded any reason in support of his conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner and had not considered the record of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether a disciplinary authority can proceed against an employee departmentally on the same facts after a finding of not guilty has been recorded by a competent court in a criminal case involving the same act? 2. Whether an order of punishment passed by a disciplinary authority is sustainable in the eye of law if it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that once a competent court records a finding of not guilty against an employee in respect of an act involving a criminal offense, it is not open to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the employee departmentally on the same facts and pass an order of punishment by holding the employee guilty. The court reasoned that the finding of guilt recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal case is final and cannot be ignored by the disciplinary authority. 2. The court held that an order of punishment passed by a disciplinary authority is not sustainable in the eye of law if it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court reasoned that the principles of natural justice require that the disciplinary authority must give the employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and must pass a reasoned order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 24.10.89 and 26.10.90. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.89, issued by the Assistant Engineer (0 and M), R.S.E.B., Tonk and communication dated, 26.10.90 of the Executive Engineer, R.S.E.B., Tonk. By the order dated 24.10.89 a penalty of stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner and recovery of a sum of Rs. 3288/- has been ordered from his salary. By the communication dated 26.10.90 the petitioner has been informed that his appeal against the order of punishment has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 379 I.P.C. in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had committed a theft of 800 meters wire, Pin-Insulator and Shakle-Insulator in Tonk on 22.5.84. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. He therefore, acquitted the petitioner. He further directed that the seized wire be returned to the Executive Engineer, R.S.E.B., Tonk. The Judgment dated 21.12.88 of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, has become final, because, no appeal has been filed against the said judgment.
3. A charge-sheet dated 7.2.89 was, therefore, issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Tonk. In this charge-sheet, the allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he had taken away 800 meters of copper wire which was given to him by one Abid, Helper, for depositing the same in the office and thus he has committed misappropriation of the wire.
4. The petitioner submitted a reply and denied the charges. He was then placed under suspension by an order dated 5.6.89. By an order dated 24.10.89 issued by the respondent No. 2, two penalties, of which reference has been made herein above,`have been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an appeal against the order of punishment. The same.has, however, been rejected as time barred and the rejection has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.10.89 of the Executive Engineer.
5. The order of punishment has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that once a Court of competent jurisdiction has acquitted him in the criminal case involving charge of theft of wire measuring 800 meters, it was not open to the Disciplinary Authority to have initiated disciplinary proceedings and to have punished the petitioner for the same charges. The further case of the petitioner is that once a Court has given finding to the effect that the petitioner is not guilty, it was not open to the Disciplinary Authority to record a different conclusion. It is also the case of the petitioner that the wire seized by the Police had been returned to the Executive Engineer under the orders of the Court and, therefore, there could be no justification for making any recovery from the pay of the petitioner towards the costs of the wire allegedly stolen by the petitioner. The dismissal of the appeal has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Executive Engineer has acted arbitrarily in refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner.
6. The respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petition. Therefore, the facts stated in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted.
7. Two fold contentions have been advanced by Shri S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case was that he had committed theft of 800 meters of copper wire by removing the same from 17 poles beyond the Tonk Jail. He argued that exactly on the same charge the departmental proceedings were held. Once the petitioner had been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, it was not open to the Disciplinary Authority to impose any punishment on the petitioner. The second submission of Shri Hasan is th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
