LAXMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Laxman Lal was working as Police Constable at Police Station, Sarada, district Udaipur. On 20.11.1983, an F.I.R. was lodged by Badri Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector Police at Police Station, Sarada, against the petitioner. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 18.11.83 the petitioner was deputed as a Watchman in the Police Station by the Station House Officer. The petitioner was of the view that this duty of Watchman was assigned to him on the complaint made by complainant Badri Lal and, therefore, threatened him of dire consequences. On 19.11.1983, when the complainant was sleeping in his quarter, the petitioner, armed with a knife, entered into the house of the complainant, tried to throttled him and gave beatings to him. The complainant got himself rescued and went out of the house. The accused-petitioner followed him but ultimately with the help of Kishan Singh, S.H.O. and Bala Ram, Head Constable, he was rescued. The petitioner, also, gave a threatening at that time that he would kill the complainant. On this information, a case under Sections 452, 323 and 427 I.P.C. was registered and the police, after necessary investigation, present the challan against the petitioner in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salumber. The petitioner was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber, for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 427 I.P.C. A departmental enquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, was, also initiated against the petitioner, the charge-sheet was served and the Circle Officer, Vallabhnagar, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Both the disciplinary enquiry as well as the criminal trial proceeded simultaneously and no application was moved by the petitioner for the stay of either of these proceedings. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of the preliminary enquiry, submitted its report and after the receipt of the enquiry report, a - notice was given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representation of the petitioner and after perusal of the record of the case, came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner stand proved and he, therefore, imposed the punishment of removal/dismissal from services by his order dated 31.1.1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur, Range, Udaipur. The appeal med by the petitioner was, also, dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, vide order dated 16.10.86. The petitioner rest contended with the order passed by the appellate authority and did not challenge the same. The trial in the criminal case was, also, proceeded in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Salumber, and the learned Magistrate, after trial, by its judgment dated 5.10.1987, convicted and. sentenced the petitioner for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 427 I.P.C; Aggrieved with the judgment dated 5.10.1987, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber, convicting and sentencing him, the petitioner preferred all appeal, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (Camp Salumber). The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (Camp Salumber), vide its judgment dated 11.8.1988, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and acquitted him of all the offences by observing that the statement of complainant Badri Lal does not find corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses. After his acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, for his reinstatement in-service. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide its order dated 23.2.1989 (Annexure 11). The petitioner has challenged this order Annexure 11 by this writ petition and has prayed that the order of dismissal (Annexure 8), passed by the Disciplinary Authority, may be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges (Annexure 2), served upon the petitioner for the purpose of departmental enquiry being the same; which were the subject matter of the criminal case, also, and, therefore, both the proceedings cannot be permitted to go together. The continuation and termination of both these proceedings simultaneously has, therefore, related in failure of justice. His further submission is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the charges are the same, the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed. If the departmental proceedings would have been stayed till the disposal of the criminal case then the services of the petitioner would not have been terminated. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others and Laxman Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and others. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court in appeal and in view of the clear cut acquittal by the criminal Court, the case of the petitioner should have been re-considered by the Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the judgment of acquittal passed by the criminal Court and the petitioner should have been reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and reliefs. As the respondent has not applied its mind in passing the order Annexure I dated 23.9.1988, the order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Mohammed Umar v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and another. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charges No. 1 to 5, mentioned in the Charge-sheet, stood disproved in view of the judgment of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court because the evidence produced in the enquiry and in the criminal trial were the same and so far as Charge No. 6 is concerned, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the given circumstances whether the authority could have passed the punishment of removal from service on this charge alone, is a matter of conjecture and the order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance over: Kundan Singh Jhala v. The State of Rajasthan and other4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the order Annexure 11 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as well as the order Annexure 8, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and further submitted that there is no absolute bar for simultaneously conducting two parallel enquiries, i.e., the disciplinary enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority and the criminal trial by the Criminal Court on the same charges. It has, also, been contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that when the disciplinary enquiry already stood concluded and a punishment has been imposed on the basis of the disciplinary enquiry itself then after the conclusion of the enquiry if the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court then the conclusion arrived at in the enquiry is not affected. Even the order of Disciplinary Authority was affirmed by the, Appellate Authority before the judgment of acquittal was passed by the Criminal Court and, therefore, so far as the enquiry proceedings are concerned, they became final and it was not necessary for the respondents to re-consider the case of the enquiry, on the basis of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court in appeal. It has, also, been contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that as the dismissal was not made on the basis of the conviction of the petitioner by the Criminal Court but the order was passed on the basis of an independent enquiry hence the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the Criminal Court has no effect on the conclusion arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is, true that the first five charges, i.e., Charges No. 1 to 5, for which the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the charges for which the petitioner was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber, are almost identical. So far as the Charge No. 6 is concerned, it relates to the absence of the petitioner from the duties which effect from 20.11.1983 to 6.12.1983. The disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal trial, both, proceeded together. No request was made by the petitioner in either of the proceedings for staying the proceedings in either of the case. In these circumstances there is nothing wrong in two simultaneous proceedings being taken, i.e., one in the criminal Court and the other by way of Depart mental Enquiry. In the case of the Supreme Court reported in: Kusheshwar Dubey Bharat Coking Coal Private Limited and another (supra) as well as in the cases of Laxman Singh and Mohammed Umar (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken against the delinquent employee against whom a disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial are initiated and there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting the disposal of the criminal case. In the later class of cases it could be open to the delinquent officer to seek the stay of the proceedings in such cases. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there should or should not have our proceedings, it requires judicial consideration and the Court shall decide it in the circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings shout be interrupted during the pendency of the criminal trial or not. No request was made by the petitioner in either of the proceedings and, therefore, continuation of the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial cannot vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the decision taken in these proceedings shall remain unaffected as in the absence of stay order the Disciplinary Authority was free to exercise its lawful powers.