SHIVDAYAL, M.L.MALIK
Sooraj Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
1. The petitioner was a constable in the police department of Madhya Pradesh. He induced one Indrani to execute a sale-deed on false pretence and thereby pocketed a sum of Rs. 2,100/- which was to be returned to purchaser Ramdayal. A departmental enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service. While the departmental enquiry was pending, Ramdayal had lodged a complaint under section 420 IPC before a Magistrate. The trial Magistrate convicted him but in appeal he was acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution were founded on the same charges, the acquittal earned by the petitioner from the criminal Court entitled him to reinstatement as a rule under Regulation 241 of the Police Regulations.
Held: The point to be seen is whether the acquittal had been obtained on technical grounds or whether on facts established the retention of the government servant in service was undesirable. If such was the case, reinstatement could be refused though the petitioner was acquitted. The copy of the judgment of acquittal is on record. The learned Sessions Judge does find that the petitioner had pocketed the a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.