Acquittal on criminal charges does not automatically warrant reinstatement in service if proven misconduct and unexplained absence from duty exist.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure P-12, and of Annexure P-14, whereunder, the petitioner's espousal for restoration in service claimed under Annexure P-11, was declined respectively, by the District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and thereafter in an appeal, borne in Annexure P-13, carried therefrom before the High Court, the latter proceeded to affirm the rendition occurring in Annexure P-12.

2. Annexure P-8, unfolds, the apt imputations of misconduct vis-a-vis the delinquent/ petitioner herein. The apt imputations of misconduct, embodied therein read as under:

“1. Whereas you are appointed as Chowkidar on temporary basis and posted as such in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, under this office, office order No. DSJ/BLP/EC/2001-25, dated 10th April, 2001 and you were working as such in the said court w.e.f. 19th April, 2001. On 3.11.2002 at abut 11 a.m., while you were working as Chowkidar in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)- cum-All. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin had committed rape on one Miss Anurag d/o Sh. Surtia Ram, Caste Brahamn, village Gehra, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspu and for which case FI.R. No. 211/2002 of offence under Sections 376, 506 IPC was registered against you in police station, Ghumarwin. The above act amounts to an offence of moral turpitude on your part, which is highly unbecoming of a public servant.

2. And whereas you had proceeded on compensatory leave and casual leave w.e.f. 20th December, 2004 to 27th December, 2004 and you were due to report for your official duty on 28th December, 2004. You had neither reported for duties on 28.12.2004, nor you had submitted any application for leave. You are wilfully absent from your duties w.e.f. 28th December, 2004 onwards, which is also highly unbecoming of your part being public servant and is vilation of sub-rule (1) (iii) of Rule 3 under Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(c) That the respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview to be held from 26.12.2016 to 28.12.2016.”

3. In pursuance to FIR No. 211/2002 being loged against the petitioner for his committing offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, he was arrested on 3.11.2002, whereafter he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 3.11.2002. However, on his being released on bail, he reported for duty on 22.5.2003. Under an order recorded on 27.09.2003, the suspension visited vis-a-vis the petitioner/delinquent, was hence revoked. The delinquent/petitioner was sanctioned compensatory casual leave w.e.f. 20.12.2004 to 27.12.2004 and was enjoined to report for duty on 28.12.2004 at 9.45 a.m. However, the petitioner did not report for duties, on 28.12.2004 nor he submitted any application for meteing's, of, extension of leave. In sequel, it was also imputed vis-a-vis the petitioner qua his remaining willfully absent from duty w.e.f. 28.12.2004. Consequently, an apposite approval was meted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, for, a notice being issued upon him, for his purveying the reasons for precluding the disciplinary authority, from, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Calssification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hence initiating action against him. The bailiff of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-ACJM, Ghumarwin, made, a visit vis-a-vis the abode of the delinquent/petitioner, whereupon, upon a communication, made, in writing by the father of the delinquent/petitioner, he made a report of his missing therefrom. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, hence, adopted the statutory mechanism contemplated in sub-rule (9)(2) appended below Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

“2. After careful consideration, it has been decided that in such cases the competent