Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1178 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Marandi v. Union of India

2014-12-01

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
Order The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.4.2000 and 2.6.2008, by which the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case, has been rejected, has approached this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been proceeded simultaneously in a criminal case and in the departmental proceeding. The order of punishment of dismissal has been passed vide order dated 9.3.1999 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, but after the order of dismissal, the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction has acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 22.9.2004. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner had made representation for review/recall of the order of dismissal on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case and the evidence and facts in the departmental/criminal case is exactly same, but the respondents vide the impugned orders has rejected the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, rejection of the claim of the petitioner is absolutely improper and without application of mind. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the departmental as well as criminal prosecution is based on different standard of proof. Though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, it has no bearing on the decision already taken by the department by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service in departmental proceeding. He has further submitted that the rule does not provide automatic reinstatement in service after acquittal in the criminal case. 4. Heard the parties, perused the record. 5. The petitioner has been proceeded departmentally as well as in criminal prosecution. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, but subsequently the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. Under the service Rule applicable to the petitioner, there is no provision of reinstatement after acquittal in criminal case. In this regard, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 can be looked into wherein para 27 it has been held as follows :- "27. Under the service Rule applicable to the petitioner, there is no provision of reinstatement after acquittal in criminal case. In this regard, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 can be looked into wherein para 27 it has been held as follows :- "27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules." 6. In view of the fact that since there is no provision in the service rules governing the service condition of the petitioner for reinstatement in service after acquittal in the criminal case, the impugned orders by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, need no interference by this Court. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.