PHOTKOORAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.12.1994 (Annexure A-9) passed respondent No. 3 whereby after holding departmental enquiry a major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 21.2.1995 (Annexure A-11) passed by respondent No. 2-Deputy Inspector General of Police, SAF, Bhilai, District Durg in departmental appeal. Facts of the case in brief are that while wording as constable No. 636 in 30th Battalion, SAF Jagdalpur, on 23.10.1993 the petitioner was put under suspension along with one Kartik Ram Nag on the allegation that in the intervening night of 21/22.10.1993 he along with said Kartik Ram and head constable Narendra Kumar left the place of duty, went out of the police line, consumed liquor and thereafter the petitioner and Kartik Ram committed the murder of head constable Narendra Kumar. Petitioner and Kartik Ram were subjected to session's trial No. 201/1993 for committing an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.1994 they were acquitted by the trial Magistrate.

(2.) Both, the petitioner and Kartik Ram were subjected to charge-sheet dated 6.12.1993 (Annexure A-2) levelling the following two charges:

(3.) Counsel for the respondents submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on serious allegations of misconduct and there is no bar under the law to hold the same. He submits that acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case does not result in his automatic exoneration from the allegation of misconduct made in the departmental enquiry and it is permissible under the law to impose penalty in the disciplinary proceedings even if the delinquent employee has been acquitted of the criminal charges. He submits that in the departmental enquiry charge of murder against the petitioner was not there and at the subsequent stage it was dropped and the main allegation against the petitioner was of committing the misconduct which was duly proved by the department. He further submits that the enquiry has been conducted after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and following due procedure required under the law. According to the State counsel after enquiry copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, his reply was sought and thereafter punishment order was issued to him. State counsel further submits that the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry are neither perverse nor vitiated under the law and therefore the petitioner has rightly been punished. He submits that the similarly placed constable Kartik Ram Nag was also subjected to departmental enquiry on the same charge, he too was punished by the disciplinary authority and his appeal too was dismissed by the appellate authority. He submits that thereafter said Kartik Ram Nag had preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 1081/2005 before this Court which vide order dated 15.7.2010 was dismissed by a detailed order and in this view of the matter the petitioner also is not entitled for any relief.