CHAMRU SAI YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 22/6/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 2726/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially working as a daily wager in the department of Water Resources, and was subsequently regularized in service vide order dtd. 8/9/2008 (Annexure P-2). On 15/3/2009, Crime No. 35/2009 for offence punishable under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Bango, Distt. Korba. On 19/5/2009, he was arrested by the police for aforesaid crime. He was in judicial custody from 19/5/2009 to 7/7/2009. Hence, he was placed under suspension as per sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 9 of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules"). After receiving character verification report regarding his criminal antecedent from Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Raipur, involving moral turpitude, his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dtd. 20/4/2010 (Annexure P-1). As per the documents filed by the petitioner, charge sheet against him for the aforesaid offences was filed by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, Distt. Korba. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into compromise with the complainant/ injured and based on that compromise, criminal case concluded against him and he was acquitted of the charges under Sec. 148, 324, 323, 323 read with Sec. 149 and 294 of the IPC, in the Lok Adalat by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, vide order dated 14-7- 2018 (Annexure P-5), as per provisions of sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). Thereafter, on 27/9/2018, the petitioner filed an application before the respondents stating that since he has been acquitted by the Court of the aforesaid offences, hence, he may be taken back in service. Since, the respondents did not take any action on his application, he filed the writ petition before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner, observing in para 5, 6 and 8 as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while joining on regular post of labourer, the petitioner had not suppressed any fact in his declaration, as the petitioner joined on the post of labourer on 1/10/2008 and aforesaid crime was registered against him on 15/3/2009. Thus, since at the time of joining, there was no crime registered against him, and therefore, there was no occasion for suppression of fact or submitting false declaration by the petitioner. Despite that, learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that "Criminal case was pending on the date when he was regularized." It is further submitted that the case laws of State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and Avtar Singh -v- Union of India and ors. [(2016 (8) SCC 471], which have been relied upon by learned Single Judge, are not applicable in the instant case, as in those cases, acquittal was based on benefit of doubt, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has been acquitted of charges levelled against him, on the ground of compromise between both the parties. It is further contended that in the instant case, services of petitioner have been terminated only on the ground of character verification report. By that time, no order or judgment was passed in alleged criminal case. Despite that, his services had been terminated, which is not sustainable at all. It is further submitted that the petitioner arrived at a compromise with the complainant/ injured and based on that compromise, he has been acquitted of the charges, as per mandate of sub-sec. (8) Sec. 320 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he filed an application before the respondents on 27/9/2018, but as they did not take any action on it, he filed the writ petition before this Court on 3/6/2021. Therefore, the view taken by learned Single Judge regarding filing of writ petition belatedly, is also not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the writ appeal as well as the writ petition be allowed and the reliefs, as prayed for, be granted.