P G KSHATRIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 28-9-2005 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 11567/2003 filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the appellant filed an Original application, O. A. No. 1784/1997, before the Madhya Pradesh State administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the O. A. , the case of the appellant was that while he was working as a Tehsildar, Maihar in Satna District, he had recovered a fine amount imposed under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code, 1959 and had entered such amount in the money receipt book as well as in cash book but the fine amount was seized as a bribe by the officers of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt on 19-12-1985. Thereafter, a criminal case was instituted against him and he was placed under suspension. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and he was tried by the Special Judge, satna, and acquitted by order dated 30-1-1995. An appeal was filed by the lokayukt but was dismissed by order dated 18-10-1995 of the High Court. During pendency of the criminal case, the appellant retired from the service on 30-6-1991. By order dated 5-7-1996 the Commissioner, Jabalpur, treated the period of suspension of the appellant from 28-3-1988 to 30-6-1991 as on duty under Fundamental Rule 54 for all purposes and he was paid arrears of salary for the aforesaid period. Thereafter by an application dated 28-11-1996 to the revenue Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant claimed legal expenses of Rs. 16,116. 50 paise and travelling expenses of Rs. 14,106. 00 paise, totalling of Rs. 30,222. 50 paise, for defending himself in a criminal case and requested the Government to reimburse the amount of Rs. 30,222. 50 paise but the amount was not paid to the appellant. The appellant accordingly prayed that an order be passed by the Tribunal directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 30,222. 50 paise and to pay 18% compound interest on the amount till the date of actual payment and to further pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of proceedings and to also pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- per annum or Rs. 6,35,000/-in lump sum.

(3.) THEREAFTER the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal was abolished and the OA. was transferred to the High Court and renumbered as writ Petition No. 11567/2003 and heard by a learned Single Judge of the High court. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant relied on a circular dated 5-4-1961 of the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya pradesh, and a circular dated 31-1-1964 of the Finance Department, government of Madhya Pradesh. But in the impugned order dated 28-9-2005, the learned Single Judge held that these circulars of the State Government are not applicable to a Government servant who is prosecuted in a criminal case and is acquitted and in any case whether the amount was paid to the lawyer by the appellant for his defence was a disputed question of fact and the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide this question and hence the appellant may claim the amount by filing a civil suit and if such a suit is filed the same will be decided in accordance with law. Regarding the claim of Rs. 50,000/- per annum or Rs. 6,35,000/- in lump sum towards damages on account of wrongful or malicious prosecution, the learned single Judge held in the impugned order that as the claim for damages is disputed by the respondents, the appellant may file a civil suit for realization of such damages, if so advised, and if such a suit is filed, the same may be decided on its merits in accordance with law and such claim for damages based on disputed questions of fact is not within the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India even if his fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution of India has been violated.