GURUNATH PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a Revenue Inspector in the employment of the State of Orissa. While he was posted at Kanchuri Circle under Chatrapur Tahasil in the district of Ganjam, a first information report was lodged against him on 29. 8. 1968 at the instance of the Collector, Ganjam on the allegation that he had misappropriated Government money. He was arrested on 30. 8. 1968 and detained in police custody till 4. 9. 1968. On 2. 9. 1968 the Collector passed an order suspending the petitioner from service (vide Annexure 1) and the order was received by the petitioner on 4. 9. 1968 while he was in police custody. During the pendency of the criminal case, a disciplinary proceeding was started against the petitioner as per the Collector's order dated 10. 1. 1969. On 31. 1. 1975 the criminal case ended in conviction under Sections 409 and 477a, Indian Penal Code and consequent upon conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of conviction (vide Annexure 4 ). The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed on 9. 3. 1976. Thereupon, the Collector by his order dated 4. 6. 1976 (Annexure 5) vacated the order of dismissal from service, reopened the disciplinary proceeding and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been continuing under suspension from 31. 1. 1975 as per Rule 12 (4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "cca. Rules ). " The petitioner challenges the order of revival of the disciplinary proceeding and the order for continuance of his suspension as illegal and prays that the departmental proceeding be dropped and he be reinstated in service with full salary and consequential service benefits with effect from the date of the original order of suspension, i. e. , 2. 9. 1968.

(2.) THE stand taken by the opposite party is that there is no legal bar the revival of the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when some of the charges framed therein were not the subject-mater of the criminal case. The original order of suspension had no connection with the criminal investigation or trial and had been made in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as provided under Rule 12 (1) (a) of the CCA. Rules.

(3.) THE proposition that acquittal in a criminal case does not operate as an absolute bar to a departmental proceeding is now firmly established by authoritative pronouncements and needs no reiteration. It is, however, not open to a disciplinary authority to take a view contrary to the judicial opinion on the same charge on a re-appraisal of the very same evidence without anything more. If the disciplinary authority were to invent its own reasoning and record a finding of guilt, the order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority may be vulnerable. In the present case, one of the charges framed in the departmental proceeding relates to unauthorised absence from duty. It will thus be seen that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case do not relate to identical charges. The petitioner was dismissed from service consequent upon his conviction in the criminal case. The conviction having been set aside in appeal the order of dismissal has been recalled. It was, therefore, open to the authorities to continue the disciplinary proceeding and the petitioner is not entitled to a questioning thereof.