STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. IQBAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The State has preferred this petition against the order dated 9-7- 2001 passed in O.A. No. 1072/2000 by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the services of respondent No. 1 from the date of dismissal and pay the entire arrears of the salary from the date of dismissal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2-11-1996 respondent No. 1 had tried to outrage the modesty of one Devki Bai, sister of Constable Prem Singh. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Durg on the same day. A criminal case bearing No. 74/1999 was registered against the respondent No. 1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 443 & 354 of IPC but the charge under Section 354, IPC was framed against the respondent No. 1 by the Competent Court and ultimately after trial, the respondent No. 1 was acquitted. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Durg, departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 1 and his services were terminated.

(2.) After the acquittal of respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 prayed for his reinstatement but no action was communicated to him, hence he submitted a representation along with the copy of the order of acquittal on 31-1-1998. The reply was sent to the respondent No. 1 and he was intimated that his appeal and the mercy petition have been rejected. Respondent No. 1 was intimated by the Inspector General of Raipur Range that it is not possible for him to decide the application filed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 may file a mercy petition before the Director General of Police. Respondent No. 1 filed mercy petition before the IG of Raipur but no action has been taken. Then respondent No. 1 filed an application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur, which was registered as O.A. No. 1072/2000 claiming relief that the termination order dated 16-10-1997 be quashed and he be reinstated in service. The claim was denied by the State.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. The Tribunal has noted the case of the rival parties, which is reflected from Paragraphs 2 to 8 of the impugned order. The point of consideration before the Tribunal was whether the impugned order by virtue of which the services of the respondent No. 1 have been terminated, is liable to be quashed. The Tribunal thereafter, noted the facts in Paragraph 11 and 12 of its order, which reads as under :--