Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Prahlad Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2000-09-14

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1982 a d was subsequently confirmed on the above post. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 14.3.1990 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. After holding a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and other co-delinquent officers jointly, punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.1990. The appeal against the order of dismissal, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31st May, 1991. A further Review Petition, preferred before His Excellency the Governor, was also dismissed vide Order dated 07.12.1994. The above orders of punishment dated 31.12.1990, the appellate order dated 31st May, 1991 and the order in Review Petition dated 07.12.1994, are under challenge in the present writ petition which has been filed on 23rd of March, 2000. 2. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452 and 336 IPC on the same set of facts by the trial Court vide order dated 16.09.1999. 3. Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, while heavily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 1416 , has submitted that in view of acquittal in the criminal trial, in the similar set of facts, the charges could not have been held to be proved in the departmental enquiry and, as such, the dismissal of the petitioner was not legal and justified. Mr. Jain has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Umar v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another, reported in 1993 (1) WLC 253 which has further been followed by this Court in the case of Sohan Raj Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1997 (2) RLW 1181 . 4. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the judgment cited at the bar, as referred to above. 5. It is well settled proposition of law and it has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. 4. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the judgment cited at the bar, as referred to above. 5. It is well settled proposition of law and it has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of Disciplinary Authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. 6. It is also well settled that the proceedings, which are initiated by the employer, are aimed at to ensure the proper conduct of the employee and are further aimed at to maintain discipline and dignity while in service and further that unscrupulous element may not be continued in service. The object of the criminal trial is to punish the offender and the Court dealing with the trial has no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action against an unscrupulous employee since that domain exclusively vests in the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary proceedings by the department can be initiated to find out the misconduct of the employee even if a criminal case is pending on identical facts. 7. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 14.3.1990 with the allegations that the petitioner consumed liquor alongwith his colleagues and some outsiders on the place of guard duty. Thereafter, while on duty, the petitioner entered the house of one Smt. Sahida and threatened the children by firing two shots in the air. It has also been alleged that the petitioner, in-spite of been on duty, without leaving the arms and ammunitions in safety, absented from the duty and left for his village. 8. In the departmental enquiry, eight witnesses were examined including the complainant, the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. It has also been alleged that the petitioner, in-spite of been on duty, without leaving the arms and ammunitions in safety, absented from the duty and left for his village. 8. In the departmental enquiry, eight witnesses were examined including the complainant, the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. As many as fifteen documents were also placed on record before the Enquiry Officer. It was only after the charges having been proved against the petitioner that the order of dismissal was passed after the Disciplinary Authority having satisfied that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in the services of the Police Department. 9. So far as criminal trial is concerned, though a challan was filed against the petitioner under Sections 307, 452 and 336 IPC, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act on an F.I.R. lodged by the complainant on 14.2.1990, however, the charges were framed against the petitioner on 30th June, 1994 under Sections 452 and 336 IPC only by the trial Court. Since all the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 16.09.1999. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner was not passed on the finding of conviction recorded by the Court in criminal case. The punishment has been imposed on the basis of an independent enquiry and the acquittal by the trial Colin subsequent to the dismissal of the petitioner has no effect whatsoever on the proceedings already taken place long back. 11. In the present case, since the mis-conduct alleged in the departmental proceedings was altogether of a different nature, may be there was some similarity on the facts, I find no illegality or impropriety in the proceedings taken by the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of the criminal case. Furthermore, there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of witnesses as produced before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry, specially the Investigating Officer and also the Doctor, who examined the petitioner immediately after tile arrest of the petitioner on the date of incident. In absence of any mala fides alleged in the writ petition against the complainant, the officers of the department, investigating the matter and also the Doctor, examined before the Enquiry Officer. In absence of any mala fides alleged in the writ petition against the complainant, the officers of the department, investigating the matter and also the Doctor, examined before the Enquiry Officer. the charges cannot be held to be not proved merely because some of the witnesses subsequently turned hostile before the trial Court in the criminal case and the petitioner was acquitted after more than nine years of the dismissal. Even otherwise, since the nature of the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case was altogether different, after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no ground for any interference of this Court in the present writ petition so far as dismissal of the petitioner is concerned. 12. In the case of Mohd. Umar (Supra), as has heavily been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the facts were entirely different. In that case the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 379 IPC for having committed a theft of 800 meters of wire. The petitioner in that case was acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.1988. However, thereafter again a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7.02.1989 in regard to the same charge of theft of 800 meters of copper wire and subsequently, after holding an enquiry, punishment of stoppage of 4 grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed with a further recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,288/-. 13. In above case, this Court while observing that the trial for criminal offence and departmental enquiry do not stand on the same footing and the decree of proof required in the departmental proceedings is not the same as it is in a criminal case, however, held that once a competent Court recorded a finding of not guilty against an employee in respect of an act involving a criminal offence, it is not open for Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the employee departmentally on same facts and pass orders of punishment by holding the employee guilty. The Court observed that if the employer can act on the basis of guilt recorded by Court for punishing an employee, converse of it must also be treated as correct. In my opinion, the above judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Umar (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Court observed that if the employer can act on the basis of guilt recorded by Court for punishing an employee, converse of it must also be treated as correct. In my opinion, the above judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Umar (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Same is the position in regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) and Sohan Raj Surana (Supra). 14. Accordingly. I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******