Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Jamna Lal Meena
Vs.
The State of Rajasthan
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6501/1998.
Decided on : February 6, 2014
Smt. Kamla Jain for the petitioner.
Shri S.D. Khaspuria for the respondents.
Acquittal in a criminal trial based on the same charges and evidence should be taken into account in departmental proceedings, and it would be unjust to allow the findings of the departmental enquiry to stand.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 16 - ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL TRIAL - EFFECT ON DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - SAME CHARGES AND WITNESSES - STANDARD OF PROOF - DISTINCTION - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a constable, was charged with negligence leading to accidental firing of his rifle, injuring three individuals. He was acquitted in the criminal trial but faced departmental proceedings and was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the acquittal should exonerate him in the departmental proceedings as well.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the charges against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry were exactly the same as those in the criminal trial, and most of the witnesses were also the same. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that when the facts and evidence in both proceedings are identical, the acquittal in the criminal trial should be taken into account in the departmental proceedings, and it would be unjust to allow the findings of the departmental enquiry to stand.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquittal in the criminal trial should exonerate the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, given that the charges and witnesses were substantially the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, holding that when the facts and evidence in both the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are the same, the acquittal by the criminal court should be taken into account and the findings of the departmental enquiry cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the petitioner's reinstatement. However, the petitioner was not entitled to other pecuniary benefits for the intervening period.
BY THE COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash and set-aside the orders 31/3/1997 (Ann.1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar whereby, penalty of removal of service and 12/11/1997 (Ann.2) passed by appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota whereby, it upheld the aforesaid order and dismissed the appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1979. He was sent to Gram Panchayat Parapipli with the police party on duty during the Gram Panchayat elections from 29/1/1995 till further orders. Petitioner was thereafter sent on duty to Gram Panchayat Nolaie from 1/2/1995. When he was taking rest in the truck about 8.00 p.m. in the evening, the Head Constable Jaswant Singh asked him to go on petrol duty. He was carrying loaded rifle for that purpose, which accidentally fired and the pellets hit the ground, on account of which, some stones were thrown away and caused injuries to Kalu Lal, Ram Lal and Chander Singh standing nearby. An FIR was registered against him for offence u/S.308 IPC with Police Station Pidawa being FIR No.14/1995. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on those allegation is under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "Rules of 1958") on 1/5/1995. During pendency of the enquiry, he was placed under suspension. The enquiry officer held him guilty and on that basis, the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar vide order dated 31/3/1997 (Ann.1) awarded him penalty of removal from service with the direction that he shall not be entitled to remaining amount of salary except the subsistence allowance for the intervening period. Petitioner filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority viz. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kot, who vide order dated 12/11/1997 (Ann.2) dismissed the appeal.
3. Apart from the disciplinary proceedings, an FIR was also lodged against petitioner by Jaswant Singh Head Constable. The challan was filed against him for offence u/S.308 IPC. The learned trial court however vide judgment dated 26/11/1997 acquited the petitioner of all the charges.
4. Smt. Kamla Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both in the charge-sheet served upon him under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and also in the FIR, the charge against petitioner was not of intentional opening of fire. The allegation was that petitioner while on duty was carrying a loaded rifle and due to his negligence, it fired and pellets hit the ground, as a result of which, the stones were thrown and caused minor injuries to Kalu Lal, Ram Lal and Chander Singh standing nearby. On the same allegation, petitioner was tried for offence u/S.308 IPC and he was acquitted. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Bherunlal (PW1), Kaluram (PW2), Ramlal (PW3), Imam Khan (PW4), Jaswant Singh (PW5), Onkar Singh (PW6), Kan Singh (PW7), Dr.K.K. Vijay (PW8), Nandkishore (PW9), Chander Singh (PW10), Radheyshyam (PW11), Puprilal (PW12) and Omprakash (PW13) were produced as witnesses before the trial court and none of them have alleged deliberate action on the part of the petitioner in opening fire. Petitioner thus was acquitted of the charge of offence u/S.308 IPC. Learned counsel argued that when petitioner was acquitted of the charge in the criminal trial, charges being same, he ought to have been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings as well.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even as per the charge-sheet, the first charge against the petitioner was that he while sitting in the truck was listening to music, Head Constable asked him to proceed on duty, which he did not immediately obey and that while loading the rifle, it fired due to negligence and the pellets hit the ground, due to which, the stones lying on the ground were thrown away causing injuries to Kal
