Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1011 (AP)

S. K. Mishra v. Director General

2014-08-11

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

body2014
JUDGMENT: Per LNR, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.7385 of 2002. 2. The appellant was working as a Lance Naik in D/113 Battalion, CRPF. In August 1997, he was posted to perform duties in the Shayampet Police Station of Warangal District. His duty was to give protection to the personnel of the police station. He was on duty between 20:00 hours and 22:00 hours on 17.08.1997. A charge sheet was issued to him on 26.09.1997 alleging that he fired two rounds from the weapon issued to him and caused the death of a Member of Force by name Lance Naik L.S.Prakash and that he was under intoxication at the relevant point of time. The appellant submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the respondents conducted departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the charges framed against the appellant are proved. 3. A criminal case was also registered in S.C.No.322 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, against the appellant, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the relevant provisions of the Arms Act. The trial Court convicted him of the offence. 4. Through order, dated 20.05.1998, the appellant was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, through judgment, dated 31.01.2000, the Criminal Court convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. A fine of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed. On the departmental side, the appellate authority rejected the appeal. 5. The appellant filed W.P.No.7385 of 2002 challenging the order of dismissal from service and Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2000 against the conviction and sentence ordered against him in S.C.No.322 of 1998, before this Court. The Criminal Appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court through its judgment, dated 19.12.2000. The writ petition came up for hearing in the year 2002. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that charge No.2 was proved and it became final and whatever be the situation vis-a-vis charge No.1, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the criminal appeal. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N.V.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N.V.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Two charges framed against the appellant read: ARTICLE-1 That the said No.820490216 L/NK S.K.Mishra of D/113 Bn CRPF while functioning as Lance Naik (GD) in D/113 Bn CRPF has committed an act of grave Misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that on 17/8/97, he fired two rounds from his SLR Butt No.350 Body No.9704 issued to him resulting into death of No.850832595 L/NK L.S.Prakash. ARTICLE-2 That the said No.820490216 L/NK S.K.Mishra while functioning as L/NK (GD) in D/113 Bn CRPF has committed an act of Misconduct under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he quarreled with NO.850832595 L/NK L.S.Prakash in an intoxicated state while on duty as Camp Patrolling Commander of the Sayampet Outpost on 17/8/97 from 2000 hrs to 2200 hrs. 8. On the basis of the findings in the departmental enquiry, the appellant was removed from service on 20.05.1998. After dismissal of the departmental appeal, he filed W.P.No.7835 of 2002, challenging the order of removal. A substantial development has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition viz., that the conviction and sentence against the appellant was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court though its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2000. 9. One of the principal grounds urged by the appellant was that once the criminal appeal is allowed, the first charge must be treated as not proved. Learned Single Judge took the view that once the criminal appeal is allowed, the first charge does not stand. We have our own doubt about such an observation. It is true that the respondents did not file any appeal against the said finding. However, we cannot permit such an observation to remain. It is fairly well established that the result in the criminal case, at the most, can be taken into account by the disciplinary authority. By itself, the judgment in criminal case cannot wipe away the charges. The reason is that the parameters for adjudication of a criminal case on the one hand and recording of findings in disciplinary proceedings, on the other hand, are totally different. By itself, the judgment in criminal case cannot wipe away the charges. The reason is that the parameters for adjudication of a criminal case on the one hand and recording of findings in disciplinary proceedings, on the other hand, are totally different. It is not uncommon that an accused is acquitted on technical grounds, but the same person can be held guilty of the charge with the same allegation in the departmental proceedings, where technicalities hardly matter. 10. Charge No.1 is in fact very grave and serious, that too in a disciplined and armed force like CRPF. It is stated that the appellant fired two rounds from the SLR Butt No.350 with Body No.9704 and that resulted in the death of another Lance Naik, who too was discharging the duties at the same time. Whatever may have been the circumstances, under which this Court acquitted the appellant, it cannot blink at a serious and ghastly incident that took place right in a police station, in which one highly placed Member of CRPF has killed another. 11. Charge No.2 is that the appellant was found intoxicated. The learned Single Judge did not differ with that finding but he treated it as closely related to Charge No.1 viz., that the firing of two rounds from a weapon was under the influence of intoxication. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The ordinary principles of benefit of doubt or showing sympathies to dismissed employees cannot be extended to the issues pertaining to armed and disciplinary forces. 12. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. 13. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.