Bhanwar Singh vs JVVNL

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned Counsels.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant & release of full wages, increments and other ancillary benefits for the period of suspension between 17/20th August, 1999 to 15/11/2002 and also consequential benefits after removal of suspension as he was acquitted of the criminal charges by the competent court vide judgment dated 4/9/2002 for the alleged offences u/s 420, 468 & 494 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narpat Singh relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the cast of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. 1999 SCC (L&S) 810 and of this Court in the case of Mangal Chand Sain v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (5) WLC 219 and submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged offences in the absence of any evidence against him by the competent court and which judgment has become final, therefore, non-payment of service benefits on the same charges cannot be sustained and deserves to be paid to the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Kuldeep Mathur submitted that though the petitioner was acquitted in the absence of evidence but it cannot be said that there was no offence committed by him and more so there was one more offence alleged against the petitioner namely manipulation in the ration card prepared by him and, therefore, withholding of service benefits cannot be held to be unjustified.

Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the controversy in hand is covered by the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cap. M.Paul Anthony's case (supra) as under:

There is a consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. Basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In departmental proceedings, factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline, or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

In Mangal Chand Sain's case (supra), this Court held as under:

After going through the facts of the case and judgment of the criminal court, which is placed on record, in my opinion, the case is fully covered by the judgment of Apex court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are set aside.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 1998. The impugned order dated 12.11.86 (ann. 6) and the subsequent orders are hereby quashed.

The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he had not been removed from the service. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits including the retiral benefits. All exercise of calculating the arrear of petitioner and the retiral benefits shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid to petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be paid the full wages, increments and other ancillary benefits with all consequential benefits for the period of suspension between 17/20th August, 1999 to 15/11/2002. No order as to costs.