SHEIKH RAHIS KHAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order of removal from the services which has been confirmed finally by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure- L. The petitioner was an employee of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Damoh. He was holding the permanent post of Samiti Manager. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was implicated in the year 1982 in a false trap case. He was prosecuted by the Court of Special Magistrate, Damoh who acquitted the former vide order dated 26.4.1986 contained in Annexure-A. Suspension pursuant to the criminal prosecution was withdrawn vide order dated 14.5.1986. It is further averred in the petition that after a long lapse of time, a charge sheet was issued on 26.12.1989 to the petitioner who submitted his reply. A departmental enquiry was conducted. Finally the enquiry officer gave his report/finding vide Annexure-E and found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier suspended. After his exoneration in the Criminal case, he demanded his past salary after reinstatement pursuant to acquittal in Criminal case. This irked the employer which resulted into issuance of charge sheet so that the petitioner may not claim his salary for the intervening period. The dismissal/removal of the petitioner pursuant to the departmental enquiry was challenged by him under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Assistant Registrar vide his order contained in Annexure-H set aside the order of removal of the petitioner and directed for reinstatement, however, without back wages. An appeal was preferred which was allowed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide Annexure-J restoring thereby the order of dismissal of the petitioner. This order was further confirmed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 260-11/91 vide Annexure-L.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vipin Yadav challenged the orders contained in Annexure-E, J and L as highly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner was already exonerated in a Criminal case by the Court having competent Criminal jurisdiction, no departmental enquiry could be held on the same set of facts and grounds. Learned counsel further submitted that the departmental enquiry could not have been held after expiry of three years from the date of acquittal. He lastly stated that it was a case of no legal evidence and the Court of Assistant Registrar had rightly set aside the order of dismissal vide Annexure-H. He finally submitted that the Court of Joint Registrar has acted illegally in making interference in exercise of the powers of second appeal vide Annexure-J.

(3.) EFFECT of decision of criminal case on departmental enquiry has been considered by the apex Court at various occasions. In the case of Union of India v. Biharilal Sidhana, reported as (1997) 4 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-5 has held :