Gangele, J. 1.The appellant/State has filed this appeal against the order dt. 7.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2681/2007 (S).

2. The respondent No. 1 was subjected to a departmental enquiry for two charges that he had taken Rs. 28,000/- from Mahesh Kumar Richhariya, Rs. 10,000/- from Hajari Lal Jatav and Rs. 10,000/- from Smt. Pushpalata Mishra with an oblique motive, hence, he had violated provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The respondent No. 1 denied the charges. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted. In the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 denied the charges and pleaded that he had been acquitted from the charges. Thereafter, the authority i.e. Superintendent of Police passed an order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 from service. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed, that has also been dismissed. During the enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer examined the witnesses. The witnesses clearly deposed that respondent No. 1 had received illegal gratification with a promise to get certain persons employed in the police. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. A proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent No. 1.

3.The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was prosecuted before the JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 394/98 in regard to charge under section 420 of IPC. The charge against the respondent No. 1 was that he had obtained bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for procuring service to one Smt. Pushpalata Mishra in the Police Department. Similarly, respondent No. 1 was also tried for another charge under section 420 of IPC and section 8/9 of Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Morena in Special Case No. 8/97. He was also tried in one more case by the JMFC Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 838/98 for the charge under section 420 of IPC on the ground that he had obtained Rs. 10,000/- from Hajari Lal Jatav in regard to procuring employment in the police department. In all the three cases, respondent No. 1 has been acquitted. The learned Single Judge has held that since for the same charges, respondent No. 1 has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, hence, he is eligible for reinstatement in view of the Police Regulation 241. The learned Single Judge also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of H.R. Kaurav Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 20009(I) MPWN 85=ILR (2009) M.P. 1233.

4. Police Regulation 241 is as under :-

“241. Cases of acquittal - When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however, the acquittal, whether in the Court of original jurisdiction or of appeal, was based on technical grounds, or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undersirable, the Superintendent, may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General.”

5. In the present case, respondent No. 1 was tried in three criminal cases involving three offences and he has been acquitted from the Criminal Court, however, in the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved and he has also produced the judgments of the criminal Courts and the respondent No. 1 has been given the benefit of doubt on the ground that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case. However, in the departmental enquiry, the witnesses specifically deposed that the respondent No. 1 had taken illegal gratification.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bank of Hyderabad and another Vs. P.Kata Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657 has held as under in regard to holding departmental enquiry or continuing the departmental enquiry