SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(MP) 1002

SHIVDAYAL, M.L.MALIK
Sooraj Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: H.S. Ruprah
For the Respondent:S.L. Saxena, Government Advocate

Short Note :

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top