AMRIK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 17/6/2015 (Annexure P-7) whereby his representation seeking reinstatement has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner joined CRPF on 2/9/1994 as Safai Karmachari and he was appointed as Constable (GD) in Group Centre (GC), Jalandhar w.e.f. 1/1/1997. On 30/6/2010, while he was posted in Group Centre, Jalandhar, he obtained permission from Guard Commissioner to leave his place of duty to pick up his son from Station Hospital, Jalandhar. He went to Kartarpur (Dhilwan) without prior permission of competent authority. He, while on his way, was arrested by Punjab Police alleging commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act. The police after completing investigation filed its report alleging commission of offence punishable respondent initiated departmental proceedings. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 4/6/2011 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before DIGP, GC, CRPF, Jalandhar who vide order dtd. 28/7/2011 dismissed the same. The petitioner came to be acquitted vide judgment dtd. 19/2/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar. After acquittal, the petitioner preferred representation before respondent seeking his reinstatement on the ground of acquittal. The respondent by impugned order dtd. 17/6/2015 rejected representation of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted by trial Court and on the date of dismissal, he was having in his credit 17 years service, thus, his matter needs to be considered sympathetically and commiserately. The respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that yardstick for criminal and departmental proceedings is different. The standard of proof in both the proceedings is different. The respondent has not considered judgment of acquittal in totality and by reading last paragraph of judgment has rejected claim of the petitioner. The respondent was bound to consider findings of trial Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1618.