Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2128 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Mahesh Kumar Jawa

2005-08-11

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment 1.We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23rd March, 2004. 2. The respondent is a Sepoy in the Central Excise and Custom Department. On 14.01.1994 a FIR was lodged at Police Station, Barmer as to the theft of 8 Jerrycanes Acetic Anhydride. According to the police the theft of the Jerrycanes was committed by the accused Jumma with the assistance of the respondent Sepoy Mahesh Kumar. However, the NDPS Court having found no prima facie case against the respondent discharged him by order dated 19.08.1994. It is not in dispute that the order of discharge has attained finality as the same has not been challenged. However, after lapse of 7 years the respondent was served with a memorandum dated 17.01.2003 for a departmental enquiry for the same charges. The respondent challenged the said memo by way of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). In the opinion of the Tribunal the continuance of the departmental proceedings initiated after 7 years from the date of discharge by a competent criminal Court has unwarranted and accordingly quashed the enquiry against him by the impugned order. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the department that even after discharge by the criminal Court the department has a power to initiate departmental enquiry for the same charges. It is further submitted that the standard of proof , the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are entirely distinct and different. As far as proposition advanced by the learned Counsel is concerned, there is no dispute. In fact the Tribunal has also not disputed this aspect of the matter. However, in the opinion of the Tribunal the department cannot initiate a departmental enquiry after an inordinate delay. The Tribunal has based its view on number of decisions of the Apex Court. It has referred to State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 ; State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakrishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154 ; State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & Anr., reported in 1990 (2) SLR 798. It has referred to State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 ; State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakrishan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154 ; State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & Anr., reported in 1990 (2) SLR 798. It has also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kuldeep Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in RLW 1999 (1) 168 wherein number of cases of Apex Court have been considered. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners we are not inclined to entertain this instant petition. As far as the allegation against the respondent is concerned, there is a finding of the competent criminal Court that there is no evidence worth the name to connect him with the alleged crime of theft of 8 Jerrycanes of Acetic Anhydride. It is of course true that even after discharge the departmental enquiry can be initiated but such decisions are to be taken within a reasonable time. If according to the department the matter is seriously to be looked into by way of departmental enquiry, we fail to understand as to why the enquiry was not initiated within a reasonable time from the date of discharge. There is not a word to explain the delay of 7 years in not initiating the departmental enquiry against the respondent. A serious prejudice has been caused to the respondent because of not initiating the enquiry within a reasonable time. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Tribunal. 5. The writ petition stands dismissed.