Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 232 (RAJ)

Mishri Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : The petitioner Mishri Lal, a former Police Constable, has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the validity, propriety and legality of the order (Annex.2) dated 14.1.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority, being the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara whereby a penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner and simultaneously, the alleged period of 507 days’ of his unauthorized absence from duty was sanctioned as leave without pay and the order (Annex.4) dated 15.10.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order imposing penalty was dismissed by the appellate authority being the I.G. Range, Ajmer. Facts in brief are that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon the petitioner alongwith the statement of allegations in the year 1998. The Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara appointed the Dy.SP cum Circle Officer, Shahpura as Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry under Rule 16(4) of the CCA Rules against the petitioner. The following articles of charge were framed against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer:- (i) The petitioner after consuming liquor quarrelled with Head Constable Ram Singh, and caused him grave injuries. Thereafter, Ram Singh was thrown down the stairs of the office of Project Officer, Jahajpur. The petitioner did not inform anyone that Ram Singh was lying in an injured condition at that place where he continued to lie for whole of the night in a state of unconsciousness. (ii) As a result of the injuries caused by the petitioner, Ram Singh expired on 13.5.1996 and an FIR No.175/96 was registered at the Police Station Jahajpur against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and upon the conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. (iii) In order to avoid arrest in the aforesaid case under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner sought and procured 10 days leave from the Police Line, Bhilwara on 2.5.1997. He did not join duty on expiry of the leave period and, remained absent from duty without permission. He returned back on 13.10.1997 and marked his presence at the police line without any permission for extension of leave from the higher officials. He also did not give any explanation for the period of unauthorized absence. He did not join duty on expiry of the leave period and, remained absent from duty without permission. He returned back on 13.10.1997 and marked his presence at the police line without any permission for extension of leave from the higher officials. He also did not give any explanation for the period of unauthorized absence. (iv) Though being employed in a disciplined force, the petitioner indulged in a grave and serious offence of murder and in order to avoid arrest, absented from duty and thereby committed grave misconduct. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. A retired Sub-Inspector of the Police was appointed as the petitioner’s defence nominee to defend him in the inquiry. The record was completed and the petitioner was permitted to inspect the same and take extract. Eight witnesses were examined by the department in support of its case. A short summary of the statements of departmental witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer is noted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: • PW1 Ladu Lal Head Constable.-The witness stated that on 14.5.1996 in the morning, the roll call was taken by Banshi Lal Head Constable and Ladu Ram Singhal incharge of the Police Station. The petitioner was present in the roll call but Ram Singh was missing. On inquiry, Mishri Lal informed that Ram Singh was lying in the office of the Project Officer, Jahajpur located opposite to the Police Station Jahajpur. The incharge proceeded to the Project Officer’s office. Ram Singh was seen lying in an unconscious condition near the stairs. He was taken to the hospital at Jahajpur from where he was referred to Jaipur. He expired while undergoing treatment at the SMS Hospital Jaipur. Mrig proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were instituted at the Police Station for inquiry into the cause of Ram Singh’s death. When the witness went to the scene of occurrence, he saw a bottle of liquor, a water pot in broken condition and the blood stained beddings of Ram Singh lying there. Ram Singh’s father submitted a report at the Police Station on the basis whereof, an FIR No.175/96 came to be registered at the Police Station Jahajpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The witness further alleged that the petitioner and Ram Singh had both come to the Police Station Jahajpur as a Challani Guard on 6.5.1996 and 9.5.1996 respectively. Ram Singh’s father submitted a report at the Police Station on the basis whereof, an FIR No.175/96 came to be registered at the Police Station Jahajpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The witness further alleged that the petitioner and Ram Singh had both come to the Police Station Jahajpur as a Challani Guard on 6.5.1996 and 9.5.1996 respectively. Both generally stayed together and instead of sleeping at the Police Station in the night, used to sleep on the roof of the Project Officer’s office. They also consumed food and liquor together at the same place. • PW2 Hinglaj Dan Sub Inspector of Police.-The witness stated that he conducted inquiry of the Mrig proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and examined numerous witnesses during the inquiry. While the inquiry was pending, Ram Singh’s father Bahadur Singh submitted a written complaint alleging that Mishri Lal Constable assaulted and murdered Ram Singh. On the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint and considering the nature of injuries found on the body of Ram Singh as per the post mortem report and the statement of the witnesses examined during the inquiry, an FIR No.175/96 was registered at the PS Jahajpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. A few witnesses were examined by this witness during investigation of the FIR. • PW3 Bhanwar Lal Constable.-The witness stated that on 13.5.1996, Ram Singh came to his house at about 6.00 in the morning. He left after 5-7 minutes. On 18.5.1996 when he came to Shahpura, he heard that Ram Singh had passed away. 3-4 months thereafter, Ram Singh’s father came and requested him that action was to be taken in relation to Ram Singh’s death. • PW4 Jairam Meena Mess Langari at PS Jahajpur.-The witness stated that he used to cook food in the Mess of Police Station Jahajpur. Ram Singh had taken food on a particular evening, the date whereof could not be recollected by the witness. The witness stated that Ram Singh took the Chapatis and the vegetables and then went to the barrack. The whole of the staff took their food after the roll call. Mishri Lal also took his food and went to the barrack. • PW5 Netrapal Singh, SHO PS Jahajpur.-The witness stated that he was transferred to Jahajpur on February 15, 1997. Thereafter, he took over the investigation of the FIR No.175/96. The whole of the staff took their food after the roll call. Mishri Lal also took his food and went to the barrack. • PW5 Netrapal Singh, SHO PS Jahajpur.-The witness stated that he was transferred to Jahajpur on February 15, 1997. Thereafter, he took over the investigation of the FIR No.175/96. The serological report of the articles sent to the FSL gave positive result. The blood group of the stains found on Ram Singh’s beddings etc. was found matching with the blood group of the stains found on Mishri Lal’s shirt. Mishri Lal was arrested and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against him in the court concerned. He further proved various Roznamcha entries relating to arrival of the petitioner and the deceased at the Police Station etc. • PW6 Ladu Ram Singhal Sub Inspector.-The witness stated that Ram Singh and Mishri Lal were both posted as Challani Guards at the Police Station Jahajpur. On 14.5.1996 the petitioner informed him at about 7.30 in the morning that Ram Singh might have consumed excessive liquor in the night and was lying in an unconscious condition near the staircase of the Project Officer’s office. On this, the Sub Inspector reached the scene of occurrence with the other employees of Police Station and saw Ram Singh lying there in an unconscious bleeding condition. He was taken to the hospital, Jahajpur in a government jeep. Mishri Lal also accompanied them. Thereafter, he was referred to Jaipur. The witness initiated the inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and made the relevant entries in the Roznamcha. The statement of the petitioner and other witnesses were recorded by the witness during the Mrig proceedings. Thereafter, the witness was transferred to District Nagaur on which the file was handed over to Mali Ram Karnawat. • PW7 Mali Ram Karnawat.-The witness stated that he was posted as SHO Police Station, Jahajpur on 17.7.1996. On the said date, Hinglaj Dan submitted a report on the basis whereof, FIR No.175/96 was registered against Mishri Lal for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Few witnesses were examined by Shri Karnawat. The petitioner was also investigated upon and he submitted the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident which were seized. The witness claims that the seized clothes bore blood stains. The seized articles were forwarded to the FSL Jaipur. Few witnesses were examined by Shri Karnawat. The petitioner was also investigated upon and he submitted the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident which were seized. The witness claims that the seized clothes bore blood stains. The seized articles were forwarded to the FSL Jaipur. Thereafter, the witness was transferred whereupon the file was handed over to Hinglaj Dan. • PW8 Sugan Singh retired Sub Inspector.-The witness stated that he was posted as RI at the Police Line. Mishri Lal Constable submitted a leave application on 2.5.1997 praying for 8 days CL and 2 days GH which was accepted. The witness further alleged that the Constable did not report for duty upon the expiry of his leave period but instead came back on 13.10.1997 alongwith an order of entry issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. On this, the entry of the Constable was recorded in the Roznamcha of the Police Line on 13.10.1997 at 8.30 AM. The witness stated that Constable Ram Singh remained absent from duty for 154 days. The report regarding his unauthorized absence of 154 days was forwarded to the SP Office. Few documents were also exhibited on behalf of the department pertaining to the investigation conducted in the matter. It is relevant to mention here that the FSL report was not exhibited during the course of the inquiry. “It is significant to note here that while noting the testimony of the witnesses in the inquiry report, the inquiry officer did not refer to even a single line of the cross-examination of the departmental witnesses.” The inquiry officer after a so called analysis and evaluation of the statements of the witnesses concluded that from the statements of the departmental witnesses and the documents, all four articles of charge were found proved to the hilt against the employee Mishri Lal, Constable. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the Constable did not lead any evidence to rebut the charges and thus, there was no reason not to rely upon the evidence of the departmental witnesses. It was concluded that the charge No.1 was established by the evidence of PW5 Netrapal Singh, PW2 Hinglaj Dan, Sub Inspector and the supporting documents. The charge No.2 was found proved against the petitioner Mishri Lal on the basis of the statements of PW1 Ladu Lal, PW2 Hinglaj Dan, PW5 Netrapal Singh, PW6 Ladu Ram Singhal. It was concluded that the charge No.1 was established by the evidence of PW5 Netrapal Singh, PW2 Hinglaj Dan, Sub Inspector and the supporting documents. The charge No.2 was found proved against the petitioner Mishri Lal on the basis of the statements of PW1 Ladu Lal, PW2 Hinglaj Dan, PW5 Netrapal Singh, PW6 Ladu Ram Singhal. Regarding the charge No.3 relating to unauthorized absence from duty, the said charge was found proved on the basis of the statement of witness PW8 Sugan Singh. The charge No.4 was found proved as being consequential to the findings on the charges No.1and 2 and on the basis of statements of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW7 and PW8. The inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority being the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, who after giving notice and hearing the petitioner, passed the order (Annex.2) on 14.1.2002 removing the petitioner from service. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer regarding charge No.1, 2, 3 and 4 and while directing removal of the employee from service, it was further held that the employee remained absent from duty between the dates (i) 2.5.1997 to 13.10.1997 (164 days), (ii) from 20.10.1997 to 18.12.1997 (60 days), (iii) from 13.1.1998 to 24.1.1998 (12 days), (iv) from 3.2.1998 to 11.2.1998 (9 days) and (v) from 19.2.1998 to 6.11.1998 (262 days). The period of 507 days’ unauthorized absence from duty was sanctioned as leave without pay. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner submitted a departmental appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules before the appellate authority being the IG Range Ajmer. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by the order (Annex.4) dated 15.10.2004. A significant development came around thereafter, inasmuch as, the criminal trial instituted against the petitioner for the murder of Ram Singh being undertaken in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara was concluded and the learned trial Court by judgment (Annex.5) dated 1.2.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.92/04, proceeded to record an honourable acquittal in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the validity, legality and propriety of the order (Annex.2) dated 14.1.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order (Annex.4) dated 15.10.2004 passed by appellate authority and seeking a direction that while quashing and setting aside the aforesaid orders, the petitioner be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 , G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 and Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan reported in (2012)13 SCC 94 and contends that where the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and evidence and the criminal court records a judgment of Honourable Acquittal in the employee’s favour, the contrary findings recorded in the departmental proceedings are unfair and oppressive. Learned counsel thus submits that the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner on the basis of the same set of facts, circumstances and evidence in the departmental inquiry as well as the criminal case cannot be sustained. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and while setting aside the order of removal from service the petitioner deserves to be reinstated back in service with full consequential benefits. Learned counsel further submits that even independently viewed, the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty on the petitioner is perfunctory and is based on absolute partisan and biased view of the evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that none of the departmental witnesses gave convincing evidence, which could be considered sufficient to even remotely establish that the petitioner was guilty of murdering Ram Singh. He contends that the department based its case purely on circumstantial evidence. However, not a single circumstance sufficient to bring home the charge of murder was established or proved against the petitioner and therefore, he contends that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. He contends that the department based its case purely on circumstantial evidence. However, not a single circumstance sufficient to bring home the charge of murder was established or proved against the petitioner and therefore, he contends that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Regarding the finding of guilt on the charge No.3 involving absence from duty without leave, learned counsel submits that the charge alleged against the petitioner was specifically limited to unauthorized absence from duty between the period from 2.5.1997 to 13.10.1997 but the finding of guilt has been recorded for a much longer period without any allegation in the charge-sheet and as such, the said finding cannot be sustained. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Per contra, Shri Anil Bissa learned AGC representing the respondent department vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the standard of proof required to bring home the charges in a departmental inquiry is different than what is required in a criminal case. He contends that there was ample evidence on the record of the disciplinary proceedings in the form of evidence of last seen and recovery of blood stained clothes and such evidence was rightly considered sufficient by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities for holding the petitioner guilty. He, therefore, prays that no interference is called for in the order imposing penalty. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for either side and perused the material available on record. Before dealing with the contention as to whether the judgment of acquittal recorded in the petitioner’s favour by the Criminal Court in the criminal case involving the murder of Constable Ram Singh would have any effect on the result of the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the charges levelled against the petitioner deserve to be examined independently. On going through the Inquiry Officer’s report dated 15.11.2000 in reference to the evidence led by the department, which has been noted above, it is evident that the inquiry officer acted in a totally partisan biased manner while recording his findings. On going through the Inquiry Officer’s report dated 15.11.2000 in reference to the evidence led by the department, which has been noted above, it is evident that the inquiry officer acted in a totally partisan biased manner while recording his findings. It is true that to bring home the charges in a departmental proceeding, the department needs to establish its case by preponderance of probabilities and need not establish the guilt of the delinquent beyond any manner of doubt as is required in a criminal trial. However, even for bringing home the charges by preponderance of probabilities, plausible evidence is required. As noted above, the Inquiry Officer did not even care to note a single line of the cross examination of the department’s witnesses while recording the finding that the department succeeded in bringing home the charges. The Inquiry Officer whilst recording his conclusions is required to evaluate the evidence led by the parties in a balanced fashion and is required to adopt an independent unbiased approach rather than act as a mouth piece of the department. The principal charge of the department against the petitioner in the case at hand was that he committed the murder of Constable Ram Singh by leaving him unattended in an injured condition after assaulting him. In order to bring home such charge, the department was under an obligation to lead either direct or circumstantial evidence. The statements of the witnesses, which have been reproduced above clearly indicate that the department contemplated to prove and bring home the charges No.1, 3 and 4 only by circumstantial evidence. The incident occurred in the intervening night of 13/14.5.1996. Initially, no FIR was registered for the alleged murder of Ram Singh. The petitioner himself was a part of the team which took Ram Singh to the hospital and participated in the inquest proceedings. Had the petitioner been involved in the offence, then his natural conduct would have been to search for an escape route. Instead, he actively participated in the efforts to save Ram Singh by taking him to the hospital. Even after the FIR came to be registered on 17.7.1996 i.e. after nearly 2½ months of the occurrence, the petitioner continued to perform his duties. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner’s conduct even after the registration of the FIR was not suspicious or doubtful by any stretch of imagination. Even after the FIR came to be registered on 17.7.1996 i.e. after nearly 2½ months of the occurrence, the petitioner continued to perform his duties. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner’s conduct even after the registration of the FIR was not suspicious or doubtful by any stretch of imagination. Circumstances of last seen together and recovery were attempted to be proved by the department to bring home the charges. The sole witness whom the department chose to rely upon for proving the charges, on basis of the evidence of last seen together was PW1 Ladu Lal, Head Constable, who gave a vague and generalized statement that the petitioner as well as Ram Singh used to stay together and rather than sleeping at the Police Station, used to go to the office of Project Officer and slept on the terrace thereof. He also testified that both these Constables used to consume food and liquor on the said terrace only. However, the witness did not state that he had seen the accused and the deceased going there on the fateful night as well. Thus, from his statement, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner and Ram Singh went together to the terrace of the Project Officer’s Office on the fateful night as well. Furthermore, the Mess Langari PW4 Jairam Meena has given contrary evidence, inasmuch as, he stated that Ram Singh took food and carried it to the barracks. The petitioner followed shortly thereafter. Thus, the circumstance that the petitioner was the only person last seen together with Ram Singh before the alleged incident was not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Rather, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the department miserably failed to lead any evidence to even prima-facie prove that the petitioner was last seen with Ram Singh soon before his death. Thus, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner responsible for the charges No.1, 3 and 4 on the strength of this circumstance is without any basis whatsoever. The other and the most significant circumstance on which the department chose to rely was that the blood groups of the blood stains found on the body of the deceased and the shirt worn by the petitioner were found to be the same upon FSL examination. Firstly, if this fact was to be established, the FSL report should have been exhibited in evidence. Firstly, if this fact was to be established, the FSL report should have been exhibited in evidence. Upon going through the list of documents annexed with the inquiry report, it is evident that the FSL report was not exhibited by the department. That apart, the department itself came out with an admitted case that the petitioner also assisted in carrying Ram Singh to the Jahajpur Hospital. Thus, the possibility of the blood stains having been received in this process cannot be ruled out. Thus, this circumstance could also not be used against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that there was no evidence whatsoever on the record of the departmental inquiry so as to hold the petitioner guilty for the alleged murder of Constable Ram Singh. That apart, the inquiry report is vitiated, inasmuch as, the Inquiry Officer recorded his conclusions without even referring to the cross examination of the witnesses. In doing so, the Inquiry Officer acted in a partisan manner. As a consequence, the departmental authority’s order (Annex.2) 14.1.2002, whereby while agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer’s report, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges No.1, 2 and 4, cannot be sustained as being based on no evidence whatsoever. The disciplinary authority whilst passing the order (Annex.2), virtually reproduced the Inquiry Officer’s report. As a consequence, the departmental authority’s order (Annex.2) 14.1.2002, whereby while agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer’s report, the petitioner was held guilty of the charges No.1, 2 and 4, cannot be sustained as being based on no evidence whatsoever. The disciplinary authority whilst passing the order (Annex.2), virtually reproduced the Inquiry Officer’s report. Furthermore, on going through the following portion of the disciplinary authority’s order, it is evident that the authority acted with a total non-application of mind to the facts of the case:- ^^tkap vf/kdkjh )kjk vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgku ds dFku ys[kc) fd;s tkdj vfHk;kstu i{k ds nLrkostkr dks ‘kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;k rFkk nks”kh deZpkjh dks ckj ckj fy[kk tkdj vius cpko i{k esa dksbZ xokg ;k nLrkostkr gks rks is’k djus gsrq fy[kk tkdj lwfpr djk;k x;kA ijUrq nks”kh deZpkjh )kjk dksbZ xokg is’k ugha fd;s x;s ,oa fnukad 9-8-2000 dks ,d izkFkZuk i= is’k dj vfHk;kstu i{k ds lEiw.kZ xokgku ,oa nLrkostkr dh udys pkgh xbZA ftl ij fnukad 3-10-2000 dks nks”kh deZpkjh dks lHkh udys miyC/k djkbZ xbZA tkap vf/kdkjh )kjk nks”k deZpkjh dks ckj ckj fyf[kr tokc izLrqr djus gsrq ,oa nLrkostkr is’k djus gsrq fy[kk x;k exj nks”kh deZpkjh )kjk dksbZ tokc is’k ugha fd;k x;kA ftl ij tkap vf/kdkjh )kjk ,d i{kh; tkap fu”d”kZ izLrqr fd;k tks fuEu izdkj ls gSA The disciplinary authority concluded that the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the matter ex-parte. The fact is otherwise, inasmuch as, the petitioner herein participated all along in the inquiry by appearing before the Inquiry Officer on most of the dates of hearing. The petitioner’s defence nominee cross-examined the departmental witnesses and despite that, the Inquiry Officer recorded his conclusions without even referring to the cross examination of witnesses conducted on behalf of the delinquent. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority too reproduced only the examination in chief of the witnesses whilst examining the inquiry report and totally ignored the cross examination conducted on behalf of the delinquent. Therefore, it is evident that the order passed by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charges Nos.1, 2 and 4 was based on total non-application of mind to the facts of the case and is perverse on the face of record. The petitioner was also held guilty of the charge No.3 and was deprived of salary for a period of 507 days. The petitioner was also held guilty of the charge No.3 and was deprived of salary for a period of 507 days. The specific article of charge No.3 as communicated to the petitioner alongwith the statement of allegations was regarding unauthorized absence for the period between 2.5.1997 to 13.10.1997 which comes to around 164 days. On the contrary, while recording the finding of guilt, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence from duty for 507 days of which there was no charge against the petitioner. As such, this finding also cannot be sustained to the extent the petitioner was held guilty of unauthorized absence for a period of 507 days. At best, this charge was substantiated for a period of 164 days. The appellate authority too whilst passing the order (Annex.4) cursorily dealt with the grounds of appeal and without appropriate appreciation of the material available on record, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner in a perfunctory manner. As such, the order passed by the appellate authority too cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the same tends to affirm the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority which itself has been found as having been passed with a total non-application of mind. Now coming to the second limb of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the departmental punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner on the basis of the very same charges, material and evidence which was the basis of the criminal case registered against the petitioner. Relying on the judgment dated 1.2.2005 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara, which has been placed on record as Annex.5, learned counsel submitted that in the criminal trial, apart from the witnesses and documents produced by the department in the departmental proceedings, numerous additional witnesses were examined and a number of other documents were exhibited including the FSL report. The learned trial Judge appreciated the material available on record and recorded an Honourable Acquittal in favour of the petitioner. The learned trial Judge appreciated the material available on record and recorded an Honourable Acquittal in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel thus submits that the findings recorded by the trial court while passing a judgment of Honourable Acquittal in the petitioner’s favour on the same set of facts and evidence, which was the subject matter of departmental inquiry, leads to an unrebuttable consequence that the order imposing penalty on the petitioner has to be quashed and set aside. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Capt.M.Paul Anthony, G.M.Tank and Gurpal Singh (supra). The relevant portions of the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Capt.M.Paul Anthony and G.M.Tank (supra) have a material bearing on the controversy involved in the present case and are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- “(1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1416 :- 34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom. 'The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the 'raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings, to stand. 35. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the 'raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings, to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” (2) G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2129 “In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during inquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 32. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic inquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply.” Upon going through the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the Hon'ble Court in no unequivocal terms concluded that when the charges, facts, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same in the departmental case as well as the criminal case and the employee is acquitted by the criminal court by recording an Honourable Acquittal, the order of penalty inflicted upon the employee by way of departmental proceedings based on the similar set of facts cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the conclusion derived by this Court that the facts, circumstances and evidence as available on the record of the departmental inquiry and the criminal case are exactly identical to the hilt and since the petitioner has been given an Honourable Acquittal by the learned trial court vide judgment (Annex.5), the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings to the extent of the charges No.1, 2 and 4 cannot be sustained as being unjust and oppressive. As a result, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annex.2) dated 14.1.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara being the petitioner’s disciplinary authority and the order (Annex.4) dated 15.10.2004 passed by the IG Range, Ajmer, the appellate authority are both quashed and set aside to the extent of the charges No.1, 2 and 4. The impugned order (Annex.2) dated 14.1.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara being the petitioner’s disciplinary authority and the order (Annex.4) dated 15.10.2004 passed by the IG Range, Ajmer, the appellate authority are both quashed and set aside to the extent of the charges No.1, 2 and 4. As regards, the charge No.3, whilst setting aside the departmental authority’s findings holding the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence for a period of 507 days, he is held guilty of unauthorized absence for 164 days which shall be treated as leave without pay. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with continuity in service. As this Court has quashed the order imposing penalty, the next question which arises for consideration is regarding consequential benefits. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered a similar controversy in the case of Gurpal Singh (supra) and granted the benefits of arrears of salary to the delinquent in similar set of facts from the date on which the appeal against acquittal was rejected by the High Court. In the case at hand, it is not claimed by the respondents that the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner was challenged by way of an appeal against acquittal. Thus, applying the ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpal Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive full salary from the date of his acquittal by the criminal court i.e. 1.2.2005 onwards. The amount accrued to the petitioner shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from 1.2.2005 till actual payment. For the remaining period, he shall be granted notional benefits. The respondents shall make payment of the arrears accrued to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum. No order as to costs.