Y C RAJWAS Vs. COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in these petitions is in regard to (he maintainability of the departmental proceedings after the acquittal in a criminal case.

(2.) The contextual facts depict that while the petitioner was working as Sub- Inspector (Executive), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) attached to the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramakrishnapur, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mancherial filed a charge-sheet against the writ petitioner in Crime No. 40/93 under Sections 307,353, 34 and 506 IPC alleging that on 21-5-1993 at about 11-30 p.m. the writ petitioner and others assaulted the Inspector, CISF B. Raju and made a criminal threat against him and subsequently in furtherance of the above incident, he is alleged to have some to the Government Hospital, Mancherial on 29-5-1993 at 10.25p.m. while he said Raju was getting treatment and attempted to kill him by pressing the throat for which a case in Crime No. 98/93 has been registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Since the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad. The records depict that two separate Sessions Cases were tried against the writ petitioner, one in S.C. No. 177 of 1994 for the offence under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and the other in S.C. No. 178 of 1994 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. During the course of evidence, however, some of the witnesses turned hostile in both the cases and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad did record that except the sole evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and as such, the accused is entitled to acquittal, by reason of which the writ petitioner was acquitted in both the cases.

(3.) Incidentally, it may be placed on record that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the departmental enquiry had commenced, and the petitioner filed writ application before this Court and obtained the order of stay of all further proceedings in the departmental enquiry.