SUBHAS CHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner of this writ application was a Clerk in. the service of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation '). On 6.9.1981, while the petitioner was posted in Bhagalpur establishment of the Corporation, a dacoity took place in the office during office hours. According to allegations by some of the employees present at the time of dacoity, the petitioner immediately after the occurrence disappeared for some time and denied that he had taken away a few bundles of currency noties which has been thrown under his table in order to save that money for being looted from the cash box. On suspicion expressed by the officers and employees, police searched the house of the petitioner and recovered Rs. 6,720/ -. This led to a criminal case against the petitioner as well as suspension and charge -sheet in a departmental proceeding. Since the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year hence, on account of such conviction, he was terminated from service with effect from 18.1.1986. As a consequence, the departmental proceeding was put in abeyance. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in appeal vide judgment and order dated 17.7.1993. Since the petitioner was not being permitted to join hence, he had to file a writ application in this Court bearing CWJC No 4711/94 which was disposed of vide order dated 3.7.1995 (Annexure -2). The petitioner was taken back in service and the departmental proceeding was revived. The enquiry officer as per his report dated 3.6.1996 (Annexure -7) found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority thereafter terminated petitioner 's service vide the impugned order dated 23.7.1996 contained in Annexure -1.

(2.) PETITIONER has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of termination dated 23.7.1996 on two grounds; firstly, that it is in violation of order of this Court dated 3.7.1995 as contained in Annexure -4 and secondly, that after his acquittal by the appellate court it was not open to the authorities to hold the petitioner guilty of same charge and to terminate his service on the ground that the charge has been found proved in departmental enquiry. Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with back wages.

(3.) SO far as the second plea is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mine Limited, AIR 1999 SC 1416, to submit that after acquittal in the criminal case it was not open to the disciplinary authority to hold the petitioner guilty of the same charge which was subject matter of criminal case and hence, the termination order was illegal.