Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1976 (RAJ)

Gheesu Lal Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-14

GOVIND MATHUR

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - For the purpose of promotion to the post of Commissioner against the vacancies of year 2002-2003, the candidature of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 23.05.2005 as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Ministerial Service Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules of 1963' hereinafter). The recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee was kept in sealed cover in view of the fact that at the relevant time the petitioner was facing a criminal trial for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The petitioner came to be acquitted from the criminal charges vide judgments dated 10.05.2006 and 05.06.2008. After acquittal from criminal charge, the claim of the petitioner is for his promotion to the post of Commissioner i.e. a post prescribed under the Rules of 1963. The respondents denied the same on the count that an appeal giving challenge to the acquittal judgment dated 05.06.2008 is pending before Rajasthan High Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person finally acquitted. 3. In pursuant to the order dated 09.092011 given by the this Court, the sealed cover containing the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee is placed before the Court. The Departmental Promotion Committee found the petitioner fit to be promoted as Commissioner against the vacancies of the year 2002-03 subject to declaration of his innocence in the criminal cases, then pending. 4. The petitioner, as already stated has been acquitted from the criminal charges and therefore, he is neither suffering from any stigma nor it can be said that he is still to establish his innocence. The acquittal of the petition made by the trial Court is final till i.e. filtered or modified by the appellate Court. 5. Merely for the reason that an appeal against the judgment acquitting the petitioner is pending consideration before the High Court, it cannot be said that he is yet to prove his innocence. Besides that, in criminal jurisprudence, an accused is not suppose to establish his innocence, but the prosecution has to establish his guilty. Be that it may, in the instant case, the petitioner has already been acquitted and therefore, it can be very well said that no material is available with the respondent to impeach his innocence. Besides that, in criminal jurisprudence, an accused is not suppose to establish his innocence, but the prosecution has to establish his guilty. Be that it may, in the instant case, the petitioner has already been acquitted and therefore, it can be very well said that no material is available with the respondent to impeach his innocence. In such circumstances, I do not find any just reason for detaining promotion of the petitioner to the post of Commissioner against the vacancies of the year 2002-2003. 6. The petition for writ, thus, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner as Commissioner as per the Rules of 1963 against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2002-2003, as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits related wit the promotion, except actual payment of wages. It is made clear that if the appellate Court convict the petitioner for criminal charges, the respondents shall be at liberty to cancel/recall the order of promotion.No order as to costsPetition allowed. *******