ANIL KUMAR MARANDI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.4.2000 and 2.6.2008, by which the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case, has been rejected, has approached this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been proceeded simultaneously in a criminal case and in the departmental proceeding. The order of punishment of dismissal has been passed vide order dated 9.3.1999 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, but after the order of dismissal, the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction has acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 22.9.2004. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner had made representation for review/recall of the order of dismissal on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case and the evidence and facts in the departmental/criminal case is exactly same, but the respondents vide the impugned orders has rejected the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, rejection of the claim of the petitioner is absolutely improper and without application of mind.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the departmental as well as criminal prosecution is based on different standard of proof. Though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, it has no bearing on the decision already taken by the department by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service in departmental proceeding. He has further submitted that the rule does not provide automatic reinstatement in service after acquittal in the criminal case.