Departmental proceedings for negligence of duty and criminal proceedings for misappropriation are distinct; therefore, a criminal acquittal does not automatically invalidate departmental penalties, and the imposition of both financial recovery and service forfeiture does not constitute double jeopardy.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, whereby, the civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, as well as against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, was also dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the civil suit, are that appellant was enrolled in the Police Department of Punjab as Constable in the year 1973. The case arose from departmental action against him alleging that he did not return the Wireless Set, which was entrusted to him since April, 1994. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, ordered recovery of Rs.7,577.90/-. Apart from recovery of money, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon, on 03.01.1994, ordered that one year of approved service of appellant be forfeited with permanent effect. Appellant filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 31.08.2001. He filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Zonal-II, Jalandhar, which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2002. FIR was registered against him under Section 409 the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which he was acquitted vide judgment dated 28.02.2000, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. And while acquitting, it was held by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, that the evidence against the appellant is not sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant. The respondent-State did not file appeal against the acquittal. Thereafter, appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.7921 of 2012, which was also dismissed. Appellant filed civil suit for declaration to be entitled to get all service benefits, loss of promotion and increments etc. from the respondent-department apart from damages and declaring orders dated 03.01.1994, 31.08.2001 and 08.08.2002 passed by the respondent-department being inconsistent with the judicial verdict dated 28.02.2000, whereby appellant was acquitted in trial under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, qua the rights of the appellant and suit for decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to make payment of entire service benefit of the appellant, in accordance with law, since the allegations/challenges levelled against the appellant stands wiped out, vide judgment dated 28.02.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and further directing the respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of damages i.e. mental torture, agony of trial, arrest and releasing on bail, loss of promotion and increments, illegal harassment and financial loss etc. with interest from the date of filing the suit till its realization. The civil suit filed by him was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, vide its judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009. He filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009, which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that for one fault, two pu