VIJOY PRAKASH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.5.2003, passed by the Chairman - cum -Managing Director, New India Assurance Company Limited, by which the petitioner 'smemorial/representation against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have been affirmed. By the aforesaid order the petitioner has been punished by reduction of his basic pay -scale salary by three stages. The only ground taken for quashing the aforesaid punishment is that the Central Bureau of Investigation after conducting investigation having decided not to prosecute the petitioner, the departmental proceedings for the same charge could not be sustained.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention brief facts are relevant. At the relevant time the petitioner was an Assistant in the New India Assurance Company Limited in the Divisional Office No. 2 at Dak Bungalow Road, Patna. It appears that one Chansi Rai file an application before the Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna stating that the petitioner was asking for illegal gratification for securing job for the younger brother of the said Chansi Rai on Class -IV post in the New India Assurance Company Limited. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid, a trap was laid in which Rs. 1,000/ - was found in possession of the petitioner which he could not explain and which allegedly was the illegal gratification given by the said Chansi Rai. A case was registered and investigation taken up by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Patna. The C.B.I. had arrested the petitioner on 11.1.1996, pursuant to the complaint as aforesaid dated 10.1.1996. Petitioner being in custody for more than 48 hours was placed under suspension. C.B.I. having taken up investigation recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Departmental proceedings were then initiated in terms of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 and petitioner was held guilty for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,000/ - which was recovered from petitioner 'spossession in presence of two witnesses, which he could not satisfactorily account for. This was found to be unbecoming of an officer. The Disciplinary Authority after following due procedure imposed penalty of reducing basic salary by three stages by its order date 12.5.1999. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 16.11.1999. At this stage, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11836 of 1999 praying for quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively. While the said writ petition was pending, on 24.2.2000 C.B.I. submitted final report not sending up the petitioner for trial. It may be noted here that C.B.I, concluded that it was not possible to establish the criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, as the transaction in question may not from part of the business transaction of the Company. However, C.B.I. categorically stated that the misdemeanour of the accused in entertaining the complainant and receiving the money are. strong ground to constitute an act of misconduct and recommended departmental proceedings. It may be noted that the final form was accepted by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna. Petitioner, in view of the final form submitted and accepted by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna filed an application before the Regional Manager, the Appellate Authority to withdraw the penalty, which was refused and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.8.2001. It appears that when the aforesaid writ petition was taken up these facts were brought to the notice of this Court. This Court was of the view that as petitioner had the remedy of filing a memorial/representation before the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Company he should first avail the said remedy raising his grievance. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 24.3.2003. Petitioner accordingly filed the memorial/representation on 7.4.2003 before the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Company, which has been rejected by order dated 25.9.2003 against which this writ petition is now filed. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited & Another since reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 also reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679. That the petitioner having been acquitted of criminal charges, the departmental proceedings became non est on the same set of facts. To the contrary, on behalf of respondents reliance was placed in the case of T.N. C.S. Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs. K. Meerabai since reported in (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 255.

(3.) THE first misconception, in view of this Court, that pervades in the petitioner 'scase is that mere non -filing of charge -sheet and its acceptance amounts acquittal. Acquittal can only be said to be after full - fledged trial and not otherwise because in other cases no charge at all has been levied against the delinquent. In my view, the correct principle which would apply here is that if the petitioner had a fair trial and an honourable acquittal, an acquittal not on technicalities, then depending on the facts it could be urged that acquittal in the criminal trial would inure to the benefit of the delinquent as against the departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. I am afraid that position does not prevail in the present case. In the present case the C.B.I. report itself clearly mentions that conviction may not possible because it may not be possible to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal trial. That what petitioner did was in course of business of the Assurance Company, which was a pre -condition for getting a conviction on such a charge may not be possible to establish for seeking convic tion. Accordingly, C.B.I. recommended de - partmental proceedings for misdemeanour and gross -misconduct, which is the consistant finding of fact of Departmental Authority at all three stages.