Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Ugma Ram, S/o. Beenja Ram and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3935 Of 2017
Decided On : 04-04-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. GR Punia, assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K .Bissa.
Point of Law: Level of proof in criminal cases is relatively high than it is in case of disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), (2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13 - Departmental inquiry - Rights would be prejudicely affected - Denied retiral dues - Petitioners are facing departmental inquiry, which had been initiated after 11 years of incident and that the petitioners have been acquitted by the competent trial Court, petitioners’ rights would be prejudicely affected and the petitioner No.1, who has since retired, will be denied retiral dues in the guise of pending inquiry – Respondents cannot be permitted to determine petitioners’ guilt (if any) by examining very same witnesses who appeared in Court - Para 30.
Finding of the Court:
Respondents cannot justifiably initiate departmental inquiry simply on finding that Court has acquitted petitioners - Because, not only evidence even witnesses are same who have testified before Court - Same evidence by whatever standard of proof cannot lead to another conclusion or result - Court is also of view that by not taking any action against petitioners for 11 years, respondents cannot initiate disciplinary proceeding abruptly as their conduct amounts to acquiescence - Impugned proceedings have been initiated abruptly, after receipt of petitioners’ representation to pay them due salary and other service benefits - Proceedings in question are arbitrary and if allowed to continue would amount to abuse of process - Petitioners are facing departmental inquiry, which had been initiated after 11 years of alleged incident and in light of fact that petitioners have been acquitted by competent trial Court, petitioners’ rights would be prejudicely affected and petitioner No.1, who has since retired, will be denied retiral dues in guise of pending inquiry.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Though the matter is listed for confirmation of the interim order, however, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are facing departmental inquiry, which had been initiated after 11 years of the alleged incident and in light of the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted by the competent trial Court, the matter be decided at this stage itself, lest the petitioners’ rights would be prejudicely affected and the petitioner No.1, who has since retired, will be denied retiral dues in the guise of pending inquiry.
2. With the consent of rival parties, the matter is being finally decided.
3. Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel apprising the Court about the backdrop facts, stated that the petitioner No.1 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police whereas the petitioner No.2 was a constable at the relevant time, when the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against them.
4. In wake of the fact that a case had been registered against the petitioners, the respondents placed the petitioners under suspension vide order dated 27.07.2006 in exercise of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules of 1958’).
5. It is to be noticed that while placing the petitioners under suspension, the respondents had neither initiated any disciplinary inquiry nor any reference of contemplation of an inquiry was made nor the same was initiated for considerable period of 10 years, in spite of the fact that pursuant to petitioners’ request, their suspension was revoked by way of order dated 17.02.2014.
6. Meantime, criminal case against the petitioners continued which culminated in acquittal of both the petitioners per viam order dated 11.03.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Ajmer, who gave both the petitioners benefit of doubt after dilating upon the evidence in great detail.
7. After being acquitted, the petitioners moved a representation dated 18.03.2016 before the competent authority requesting to give due salary and other benefits, including, benefits of selection Grade, which were due to them on completion of requisite years of service. Said representation was followed by another representation at 22.11.2016.
8. Instead of acceding to petitioners’ request for grant of full salary and other service benefits, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur decided to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners and issued a charge sheet dated 21.02.2017 framing two charges against them. Both the charges related to demand/acceptance of bribe in relation to the trap held by the Anti Corruption Bureau, for which above referred criminal case was registered against the petitioners in which they stood acquitted.
9. Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel argued that the disciplinary inquiry in question is illegal, arbitrary and vindictive, inasmuch as the same has been initiated after about 11 years of alleged incident and that too when the petitioners have been acquitted by the competent Criminal Court.
10. While maintaining that no case of demand/acceptance of bribe is made out against the petitioners in light of the evidence led before and considered by the competent Court, learned Senior Counsel underscored that neither at the time of suspension nor during pendency of criminal case, the respondents have ever thought of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and argued that same has been initiated only to deny the petitioners their due benefits.
11. It was also argued that, if the respondents were of the view that disciplinary inquiry was required to be initiated against the petitioners, they ought to have initiated the same immediately while placing the petitioners under suspension, inasmuch as, all the facts including pendency of criminal case was in the knowledge of the respo
