MOHAN CHANDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were serving as Head Constables in the Signal Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force with headquarters at Neemuch. During the period dated 24th June, 1979 to 25th June 1979, there was an agitation amongst the Members of the force and the petitioners were arrested in connection with the said agitation along with three others, as they were suspected of having participated in a strike. A criminal complaint No. 2/79 against petitioner No. 1 and No. 5/79 against petitioner No. 2 were filed by Sri C. L. Sharma, the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the respondent No. 2 who under Section 16 of the C. R. P. F. Act is empowered and acts as Chief Judicial Magistrate. A complaint is filed as Annexurc-1 to the petition. By order Annexure-A, the petitioners were acquitted by the respondent No. 2, as the complaints filed against them were withdrawn by the complainant with permission of the Court. It was on withdrawal of the criminal prosecution that a memorandum, Annexure-B, in the nature of a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioners by the respondent No. 2 as Commandant who also acted as Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 17th October, 1979, the respondent No. 2 appointed one Shri Savariappa as an Enquiry Officer to conduct a joint enquiry against the petitioners and the relevant order dated 17th October, 1979 is filed as Annexure-C to the petition. By Annexure-D. which is dated 22nd October, 1979 the petitioners applied for a copy of the approval, said to have been granted for holding such a joint enquiry. It was applied by them on 2nd November, 1979 by letter, Annexure-E. The approval itself is filed as Annexure-F to the petition which is a message.

(2.) THE petitioners denied the charges levelled against them and also pray for permission to avail the services of an Advocate, the Enquiry Officer happened to be a graduate and an Assistant Commandant. It also stated in their application, Annexure-G-1 that the Department had availed of services of a Presenting Officer who also happened to be a graduate. However, by reply dated 2nd November, 1979, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners that no Presenting Officer had been appointed in the case and the assistance of a legal practitioner could not be permitted as the C. R. P. Rules did not provide for such an assistance. The enquiry lasted for 25-days. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, a show-cause notice, proposing dismissal from service was issued against the petitioner. The Enquiry Report along with the show-cause notice is filed as Annexure-M and the reply to the show-cause notice is filed as Annexure N-l and N-2. The respondent No. 2 passed the final order on 18th January, 1980 dismissing the petitioners from service. On an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the same also stood rejected vide order dated 18th March, 1980 as Annexure Q-2. Even the revisions preferred by the petitioners were also dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police, Sector-3, New Delhi i by his order dated 12th May, 1985 as Annexure, S-1 and S-2. The petitioner even preferred mercy petitions which also met with the same fate. The relevant order is filed as Annexure U-1 and U-2 dated 30th August, 1980. Having availed of the procedural remedies and failed in their bid, the petitioners have now approached this Court by this petition, challenging the order of dismissal from service as passed by respondent No. 2 and confirmed by No. 3 and 5 in appeal and revision respectively. They also seek a direction for their reinstatement in service with full back-wages and other benefits. The respondents do not dispute the essential facts as stated above. The dispute which is raised by the petitioners is with regard to the legal effect of the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as Chief Judicial Magistrate on withdrawal of the complaint by Shri C. L. Sharma, Dy. S. P. Signal Group Centre, Neemuch.

(3.) IT is their contention that as the petitioners were not tried for the alleged offences and not acquitted on trial of the charges but acquitted under Section 257 Cr. P. C, they cannot claim a clean and clear acquittal in their favour.