ANEKPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ADMINISTRATOR, NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has challenged the order dated 29.1.1986 and 8.2.1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun and the Commissioner, Garhwal Division respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of Municipal Board, Dehradun. At the relevant time in the year 1982 -83 while the petitioner was serving as a Cashier in Municipal Board, Dehradun (as it was at the relevant time), he was charged with embezzlement along with another employee. A due process of law was adopted, inasmuch as a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, and when the charges were established, his services were terminated vide order dated 29.1.1986.

(3.) THE petitioner has cited the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. : (1999) 3 SCC 679 in his favour and has contended that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that if a criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding are on the identical set of facts, then in case a person is acquitted in a criminal proceeding, the departmental proceedings are also liable to be dropped. In the said case cited before this Court one Captain M. Paul Anthony, who was working in a Government Undertaking in Karnataka as a Security Officer since 31.10.1983. A raid was conducted by the Superintendent of Police at his residence on 2.6.1985, where a mining sponge gold ball weighing 4.4 grams and 1276 grams gold -bearing sand was recovered from his house. On these set of facts, a First Information Report was lodged and consequently, he was also put under suspension and charge -sheeted in a departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding culminated in his order of termination, whereas subsequently he was acquitted by the criminal Court. Captain Anthony, thereafter, came out with a case that since he has been acquitted by the criminal Court, his termination order is also liable to be set aside, as the action of his employer in both the cases i.e. the departmental proceeding as well as the criminal case was based on the same fact which was the raid conducted by the Superintendent of Police at his residence, from where a recovery was alleged to have been made and the departmental proceedings were, therefore, liable to be set aside as the facts and the evidence in the departmental proceeding as well as in the criminal proceeding were common. On these set of facts, the Apex Court in the said case held as under: