The acquittal in a criminal case does not bar administrative recovery actions if substantiated by prior investigations.

……Respondents For the applicant : MR. P.N. Bhat, counsel For the respondents : Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG Mr. Akshay Sadotra, counsel for AG Heard on : 2.5.2025 Pronounced on : 19.9.2025 O R D E R Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, J.M.

The applicant being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1471 of 2015. After the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and the formation of UT of J&K, the case was made over to this Tribunal where it was re-numbered as TA 8205/2021.

A) WRIT OF CERTIORARI:-

i) Quashing order No. 161 of 2006 dated 07-03-2006 as contained in Annexure-A.

ii) Quashing order No. PNRJ-1/133157/2008-

09/838-40 dated 27-10-2008 contained in Annexure-D.

B) WRIT OF MANDAMUS:-

i) Commanding the respondents to show compliance of the judgment dated 13-12-2013 as contained in Annexure-F by implementing the same in letter and spirit.

ii) Commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits.

ii) Commanding the respondents to repay the recovered amount of Rs.5,32,605/- to the petitioner alongwith interest.

iii) Commanding the respondents to implement the judgment dated 13-12-2013 as contained in Annexure-F in its letter and spirit.

C) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.

2. The fact of the case is that –

a) The applicant was appointed as Constable in the J&K Police on 21-01-1982. He was forcibly retired w.e.f. 31.3.2006 In the year 2003 the applicant was posted as IO in the Police Station, Rajouri. In the year 2004, the then SHO police station Rajouri pressed hard the applicant to take charge of Malkhana but the applicant refused to take the charge of Malkhana on the ground that he was not transferred to this police station for the said purposes. The applicant was brought back to police station Rajouri. Thereafter he was again forced to take charge of the Malkhana on 26.7.2004 and continued to remain in the charge of Malkhana up to 31.3.2006.

b) The applicant was not aware of the fact that there was some shortage in the Malkhana. The then SHO threatened the applicant that he would implicate him in the embezzlement of Malkhana and asked him to take retirement at the age of 47 years. It is further submitted that the applicant was forcibly asked to submit the application for his voluntary retirement and threatened that in case he does not take voluntarily retirement, his other two sons will be falsely implicated in militant related incidents for which number of open FIRs are already registered in the police station. It is because of the forcible voluntary retirement, order No. 161 of

2006 was issued on 8.7.2006. The applicant was asked to get NOC from all wings in order to submit his pension case as well as other retrial benefits. NOC was issued in favour of the applicant authenticating the fact that there is no outstanding of any nature against him. Once the applicant resisted for seeking voluntary retirement, he was assured that the respondents will appoint one of his sons in Police belt force.

c) The applicant was ultimately falsely implicated in FIR No. 239/2006 after his retirement and he was put to trial wherein he got acquittal on 24.7.2013. It is further submitted that the applicant was about to challenge the impugned order earlier but was advised that he cannot challenge the same unless the criminal trial is concluded. The respondents without any right or reason have recovered Rs.5,32,605/- from the retrial benefits in lieu of alleged shortage shown against the applicant without having any enquiry in the ma