A departmental inquiry cannot be held against a government servant on the basis of an assumption of guilt in a criminal case in which the servant has been acquitted. Such an inquiry is violative of the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been-filed by the plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below. His appeal before the District Judge was dismissed summarily without notice to the respondent. It is directed against the order of Shri C. B. Kekre, district Judge, Chhindwara, arising out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri s. M. I. Alvi, Civil Judge, Class I, Balaghat.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police at Tendu Kheda in charge of the Police Station House. He, along with some others, had been prosecuted for offences under Sections 304, 331 and 201 of' the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Shri J. N. Dutta, Magistrate, First Class, with powers under Section 30 of the criminal procedure Code, who by judgment dated 7-7-1944, acquitted all the accused-honourably in criminal case No 54 of 1944. The matter was not taken up further by the prosecution against the said acquittal. The prosecution version was that the Sub-Inspector had been to the house of one gokal to carry, on investigation in connection with a theft alleged to have, been committed by the deceased Mozi. The charge in the said criminal case was that on the night of 7-2-1944, the deceased Mozi was treated by third degree methods; as a result of which, two of his ribs were fractured and his spleen was ruptured and the death was said to have been caused on account of the beating alleged to have been administered by the Sub-Inspector. The Magistrate, while acquitting the accused under Section 258 (1) of the Criminal procedure Code, held that there was no beating in the house of Gokal on the night of 7-2-1944 and that after the investigation, the deceased Mozi went back to his house-alive, where his mother, wife and daughter met him some time in the midnight. The Magistrate also found that there were no injury marks on the body of the deceased, but two of his ribs had been fractured and his spleen had also been ruptured. Considering all the evidence, the Magistrate acquitted honourably all the accused, holding that the prosecution version, was wholly incorrect.

( 3 ) THE present suit was filed for a declaration to the effect that the order dated 2212-1945, passed by the Inspector General of Police was void, as the authorities had contravened Regulation 241 of the Police Regulations, inasmuch as, they had, in the departmental inquiry, held him guilty of the alleged charge of committing culpable homicide with respect to the deceased Mozi. The plaintiff averred that the departmental authorities had no right to sit in judgment over the decision of the criminal Court, and, therefore, the order of dismissal was wholly without jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 4,724/5/-as arrears of salary and paid court fees on the consequential relief without paying any court-fees on the declaration. In the body of the plaint, the order of dismissal was specifically challenged, though in the relief clause, the plaintiff-claimed a decree for Rs. 4,724/57- only for arrears from 1-4-1947 to 1-4-1951.

( 4 ) IN the written statement the defence reiterated the allegations, which were the subject-matter of the charge in the criminal case. It was further averred that the charge framed in the departmental inquiry was relating to the concealment of facts as to the cause of death of the deceased Mozi, which had nothing to do with the charges in the criminal case. It was alleged that the order of dismissal was valid, as it had been passed after a proper departmental inquiry conducted in accordance with the Police Regulation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that the departmental authorities had no power or authority to hold a departmental enquiry in respect of a matter, regarding which, the law Court had acquitted him. From the charge dated 9-101944 (Ex. D-1), it is clear that the charge was not in respect of the same matter, as the charges in the criminal case. The departmental charge was as follows :

"concealment of facts as to the cause of the