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 amount of Rs. 2,100/- though he says, the dishonest intention was not there at the outset, which was an essential ingredient of the offence of section 420 of the, Indian Penal Code. It is clear enough that the petitioner has been acquitted on a technical ground. He had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 2,100/- which on refusal of Indrani to get the deed registered, ought to have been paid back to Ramdayal. Ramdayal does neither get the land nor the refund of his money. It is definitely a case of departmental mis-demanour. There are no equities in the petitioner's favour. He cannot be heard to say that he had incurred a Civil liability when he did not return the money and a suit could be filed against him. The manner in which the money was obtained was definitely improper, though may not be criminal at the outset. The criminality in the conduct lay in refusal to refund when the money was demanded unfortunately, the petitioner was not charged under section 406 IPC or else he would have been in difficulty. Be that as it is, the second charge of the retention of the money which ought to have been refunded to Ramdayal was a charge not covered by section 420 IPC. A departmental action taken on the basis of that charge could not be quashed. That being so, the petition must fail, Hari Narain Dubey v. State of M.P. 1975 JLJ 569, relied on. Petition dismissed.