The main legal point established is that departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, and a criminal acquittal does not automatically impact the findings of a departmental inquiry.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The sole question of law raised in the instant appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity,`the Code) is whether departmental proceedings could continue during the pendency of criminal charge.

2. Brief facts of the case, which are necessary for deciding the aforesaid question, are that the plaintiff-appellant joined Police Department as Constable on 2.6.1976. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1981 when he was posted in the Police Lines, Ferozepur. The allegation was that on 16.7.1981 when he was serving in Second Reserve Police Lines, Ferozepur, he went to Control Room to seek permission to proceed on leave from Reserve Inspector Gurbux Singh. The Reserve Inspector asked him to go to Mahairir Head Constable of Police Lines for obtaining report as to how many constables were on leave. Thereafter the Reserve Inspector asked him to obtain permission of Lines Officer and then proceed on leave. The plaintiff-appellant is alleged to have abused the Reserve Inspector Gurbux Singh and also slapped him. On the intervention of Naresh Kumar, ASI, and Avtar Singh, Constable, he was forced to leave the room. After holding inquiry in accordance with the rules, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, vide his order dated 12.1.1982, dismissed him from service with effect from that date. In respect of the suspension period, the Senior Superintendent of Police observed that whatever he was paid during the suspension period shall be retained by him. The plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was still pending at the time when the suit was filed challenging the order of dismissal dated 12.1.1982.

3. The Trial Court after examining the evidence framed the following four issues :-

"1. Whether the order dated 12.1.1982 passed by the S.S.P., Ferozepur is illegal, null and void ? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD.

4. Relief."

4. On issue Nos. 1 and 2 the Trial Court after examining the evidence expressed the opinion that departmental proceedings could not continue if the criminal charge is pending. In that regard the Trial Court has placed reliance on the judgments of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1980 SC 806, Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155 and some other judgments of this Court or other High Courts. Accordingly, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the respondent State and in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Under issue No. 3, suit was found to be filed within limitation and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In pursuance of the findings recorded on all the three issues, the order of dismissal, dated 12.1.1982, was set aside by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.1986.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the respondent State preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code, which was allowed and the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were reversed. According to the learned lower Appellate Court the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings could progress side by side and there was no bar in the police rules to the adoption of such a course. The departmental proceedings were concluded on 12.1.1982 whereas the plaintiff appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on 24.7.1984. It was further noticed that the plaintiff-appellant was acquitted for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt. After reversing the finding on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the finding on Issue No. 3 with regard to limitation was affirmed. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent State was allowed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant appeal.

6. Having heard the learned State counsel and perusing the r