Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 736 (RAJ)

Mangal Chand Sain v. State of Rajasthan

2001-04-27

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that for the allegations contained in charge sheet (ann.1) dated 30.8.80, the petitioner was also prosecuted in criminal court for the offence under Section 409, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 277/94 and was so acquitted by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad vide order dated 11.3.99. Relying on the judgment in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, 1999(3) SCC 679 , he states that the punishment awarded to him on the charge sheet is to be quashed. 2. The petitioner was charge sheeted in regard to non-accounting of the amount of Rs. 113.19; 309; 63.21; 1200.00; 32.50; 206.00; 15000.00 on the allegation that even though receipts were duly issued by the petitioner but the amount was not deposited by the petition- while he was working as Patwari. The FIR in this regard was also simultaneously recorded for the offences as mentioned above. After enquiry the petitioner was issued show casue notice (ann.4) of dismissal from service and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.86 (ann.6). The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 22.8.88 (ann.8). Even the review application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.4.90 .(ann.10). 3. The petitioner had challenged the impugned orders in this writ petition. Even though number of grounds have been taken in writ petition, but counsel for petitioner states that because of decision of criminal court on the same charges based on same evidence and same witnesses, as based in departmental enquiry, the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner of the charges of misappropriation as having not been proved. 4. The Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) has observed as under: "34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom'. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and and witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant had effected recovery. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and and witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the 'raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand." 5. After going through the facts of the case and judgment of the criminal court, which is placed on record, in my opinion, the case is fully covered by the judgment of Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are set aside. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 1998. The impugned order dated 12.11.86 (ann.6) and the subsequent orders are hereby quashed. 7. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he had not been removed from the service. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits including the retiral benefits. All exercise of calculating the arrear of petitioner and the retiral benefits shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid to petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******