Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 127
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala
Writ Petition No. 886 of 2008 (S/S)
JAMAL AHMAD – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 20.04.2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Adv., assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder
Headnote:(A) Service Matter — Departmental and Criminal proceedings, initiated against petitioner for some misconduct — Departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings not based on the same set of facts, charges and the evidence — And the mere fact that the petitioner had been acquitted from the criminal court does not entitle him to be reinstated in service — Especially, when the criminal proceedings were based on different sets of facts, charges and evidence.
(Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Service Matter — Departmental and criminal proceedings — Object of — Departmental proceedings ascertains whether the delinquent is required to be retained in service or not — While criminal proceedings finds out whether the offence in the criminal statute has been made out or not — Departmental proceedings are taken to maintain the discipline and the efficiency in the service — On the other hand criminal proceedings are initiated to punish a person for committing an offence violating any public duty.
(Paras 12 to 15)
¼v½ lsok dk ekeyk & ;kph ds f[kykQ foHkkxh; o vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh & ijUrq nksuksa dk;Zokgh vyx vyx rF;ksa o lcwrksa ij vk/kkfjr & flQZ ;g rF; fd izkFkhZ dks vijkfèkd dk;Zokgh ls eqDr fd;k x;k ls ;g rkRi;Z ugha fd izkFkhZ dks lfoZl esa nksckjk j[k fy;k tk, & tcfd vijkf/kd dk;Zokgh fcYdqy vyx rF;ksa] nks”k o lcwrksa ij vkèkkfjrA ¼izLrj 10 vkSj 11½
¼c½ lsok dk ekeyk & foHkkxh; o vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh & dk mn~ns’; & foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ;g fuf’pr djrh gS fd nks”kh dks lfoZl esa j[kk tk,] vifrq ugha vkSj ;g vuq’kklu vkSj dke esa efficiency ykus ds fy, dh tkrh gS & tcfd vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh ekud r; djrh gS fd vijk/k dkuwu esa vkrk gS fd ugha Criminal dk;Zokgh ,sls O;fDr dks n.M nsrh gS ftlus Public duty dh voekuuk dk vijk/k fd;k gksA
¼izLrj 12 ls 15½
Heard Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Pundir, the learned Brief Holder for the State.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was working as a Naib Nazir in Tehsil Haldwani. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner in the year 1983, on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended. Based on the investigation, a criminal chargesheet was filed and the criminal proceedings proceeded u/S 218 and 409 I.P.C. Eventually, the petitioner was honourably acquitted by a judgment of the criminal court on 27th June, 2005. However, pursuant to the irregularities in the manipulation of the registers and embezzlement of the State exchequer, departmental proceedings was also initiated against
the petitioner and a chargesheet was issued. The petitioner submitted a reply and, since the reply was not found satisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry. It has come on record that the petitioner did not participate in the domestic inquiry which resulted in ex-parte proceedings against him. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the evidence collected, submitted an inquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of 21 charges that was levelled against him. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was given by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed his reply and, thereafter, the disciplinary autborlty passed an order of dismissal dated 5th July, 1990. The order of dismissal was not challenged
and the same became final. The petitioner accepted the dismissal order.
3. Upon his acquittal from the criminal court, the petitioner moved a representation to the disciplinary authority praying that in view of his acquittal from the criminal court, he should be reinstated in service. The said representation was rejected by the Revenue Secretary by an order dated 07/12/2006. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the present writ petition in the year 2008 praying for the quashing of the dismissal order dated 5th July, 1990 as well as the order of the Revenue Secretary dated 07/12/2006 rejecting the representation for reinstatement.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and contended vehemently that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings proceeded on the same set of charges and, since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal court, the petitioner was liable to be reinstated in service. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 as well as in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 wherein the Supreme Court held that where the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses, and the employee is honourably acquitted in a criminal court, in such view of the
matter, the dismissal order pursuant to the domestic inquiry was not sustainable, nor fair nor just and, consequently, the dismissal order was set aside. The learned counsel relying upon the said decisions submitted that the dismissal order was liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the criminal court and that he should be reinstated in service.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) was vexed with the question as to what should be done when criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are simultaneously continuing on the same set of charges where evidence and witnesses are the same. The Supreme Court after analyzing the various decisions of the Supreme Court held:-
“The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmen
