Hari Raj Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.�The petitioner/appellant (for short the ''appellant''), in the instant intra-court appeal, has impeached the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2013, rendered by the learned Single Judge, declining the prayer of the appellant for reinstatement with all consequential benefits for his acquittal in the criminal case for which he was tried on the same set of allegations, which were the subject matter of the charge-sheet leading to his dismissal from service.

Briefly outlined, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are: that the appellant was initially appointed as Helper in the year 1970 and was conferred with semi permanent status in the year 1972. On registration of an FIR against the appellant on 3rd March, 1983, he was placed under suspension on 8th March, 1983. A departmental enquiry was initiated serving a charge-sheet on 17th March, 1983, which ultimately resulted into an enquiry report dated 28th April, 1983, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, leading to termination of the services of the appellant as a consequence thereof. On a challenge to the termination order by the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 9th November, 1989, upheld the order of termination as legal and valid. On a further challenge, the award was confirmed by this Court dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3149 of 1990, vide order dated 9th February, 1993, which was not challenged any further by the appellant. On acquittal of the appellant by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Number 2, Kota (South), in Criminal Case Number 65 of 1983 (State v. Ramcharan & Ors.) for offence under Section 147, 427, 504, 323 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 14th September, 1994, which was not challenge any further; the appellant instituted a writ application with a prayer for his reinstatement in service in view of his acquittal placing reliance on circular dated 19th of April, 1986, issued by the Department of Personnel. The writ application has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 5th July, 2013, which is impugned herein.

The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the pleaded facts, has emphatically argued that though the order dated 9th February, 1993, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3149 of 1990, assailing the legality and validity of the order of dismissal, was not challenged any further, but in view of acquittal of the appellant in Criminal Case Number 65 of 1983 vide judgment and order dated 14th September, 1994, the very substratum of the order of dismissal obliterated, and therefore, the appellant is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. According to the learned counsel, the case of the appellant ought to have been reviewed by the State-respondents on his acquittal in the criminal case in view of the communication/circular dated 19th April, 1986 and instructions issued vide letters/communications as referred therein.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the materials available on record as well as carefully examined the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5th July, 2013.

It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not challenge any further the judgment and order dated 9th February, 1993, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3149 of 1990 (Hariraj Singh v. The Executive Engineer & Ors.), wherein the appellant impeached the departmental proceedings precipitating into an order of termination of his services, upheld by the learned Industrial Tribunal as well as by the High Court dismissing the writ application with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees : One Thousand).

The learned Single Judge taking note of the facts as aforesaid, examined the matter and claim of the appellant in the light of the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, ; as referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that the order of dismissal of the appellant attained finality, and further, there was no prayer to quash the dismissal order as well as considering the fact that the order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant before the learned Industrial Tribunal unsuccessfully and before this Court wherein the award was confirmed dismissing the writ application of the appellant with cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees : One Thousand), vide judgment and order dated 9th February, 1993, which was not challenged any further; rightly dismissed the writ application vide impugned judgment and order dated 5th July, 2013.

Having considered the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Ors. (supra), the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, committed no error in concluding that there was no declaration made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the effect that on an acquittal in the criminal case, the disciplinary action, already concluded and given effect to, would vitiate the order of dismissal. The consequences in such a situation, would depend on the mandate of the text of the relevant Service Rules, if there existed any provision for reinstatement, and not as a matter of right. The contention raised on the basis of circular and the instructions indicated therein, has also been rightly repelled as the circular cannot be treated as statutory Service Rule.

By now, it is well settled law that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of the criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated facts and law, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, referring to the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors.: (2007) 10 SCC 385. Moreover, the proposition that standard of proof in two proceedings i.e., departmental and criminal trial, are of different nature. Further, to conclude the departmental proceedings as early as possible, is in the interest of both i.e. the employee and the administrator, for if the employee is not found guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case, he is found guilty, the Administration may get rid of him at the earliest, as observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The view of the learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, we are not persuaded to take a different view than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the intra-court appeal is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.