Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1054 (MP)

H. R. Kaurav v. State of M. P.

2008-08-21

R.S.JHA

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Sub-Inspector, has filed this petition praying for quashing of the charge-sheet issued to him on 26.11.1990 and for a further direction to the respondents not to proceed further in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was already being prosecuted for the same charges before the Competent Criminal Court in Sessions Trial No. 82/1992 pending before the First Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mandla. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had initially filed this petition before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and by interim order dated 11.9.1996 further proceedings in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner were stayed. The interim stay, granted by the Tribunal, continues tilt date. 2. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner has filed an application for taking documents on record on 10.1.2002 and has placed the judgment of the First Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mandla, dated 28.4.2000 passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 82/90 and 72/93 and Special Case No. 28/94 on record in which the petitioner has been acquitted. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has been acquitted by the Competent Criminal Court in respect of the charges which are similar and identical to the one which have been levelled against him in the departmental proceedings, the petition filed by him deserves to be allowed and the impugned charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. The aforesaid facts are not denied by the respondents. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court only proposes to examine as to whether the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case has rendered the departmental proceedings initiated against him a nullity specifically in view of the provisions of Regulation 241 of the M.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Police Regulations') which is in the following terms: "241. Cases of acquittal. -- When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. Cases of acquittal. -- When a Police Officer has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he must as a rule be reinstated. He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the Court of original jurisdiction or of appeal, was based on technical grounds, or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector General." 5. Though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the impugned charge-sheet are different and not identical to the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case, in which he has been acquitted, a perusal of the judgment in the case dated 28.4.2000 indicates that the issue regarding an attempt on the part of the petitioner to convert the case of murder into one of suicide, demanding bribe, beating up the complainant, not properly recording the statements of the complainant or the seizure memo and other conducts not becoming that of a Police Officer which were levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case were identical to the charges levelled against him in the Departmental Enquiry though additionally he was also charged with offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Court, after analyzing and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has acquitted the petitioner by recording a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the same against the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that as the charges in both the cases, i.e., the departmental proceedings and the criminal case, were identical and as the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court of the same charges on which the Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 241 of the Police Regulation. It is appropriate to state that normally the proper course in such a case would have been to remit the matter back to the Departmental Authority to examine the case after his acquittal in the criminal case, in the light of the provision of Regulation 241 of the Police Regulations, however, looking to the fact that the incident relates to the year 1989 and that the petition is pending before this Court since 1996, and on a perusal of the record it is patently apparent that the charges in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were same, no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.11.1990 and the departmental proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, are hereby quashed in view of the provisions of Regulations 241 of the Police Regulations and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. 7. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.