Khushi Ram vs Union of India (UOI)

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a Plaintiff''s second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration.

The Plaintiff was appointed a Patwari in June, 1956. While posted as Patwari in the Tehsil of Dehra his office was raided by the Anti-Corruption Staff and some material was seized. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him, and the Collector, Kangra Division, made an order dated October 24, 1960, dismissing him from service. An appeal by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on September 15, 1961. Meanwhile, proceedings were also initiated against him u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations were the same as those in the departmental enquiry. The Special Judge acquitted the Plaintiff. Upon this, the Plaintiff" applied in revision to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, against the order of the Commissioner dated September 15, 1961. On February 10, 1966, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition in so far that the penalty of dismissal was replaced by that of removal.

The Plaintiff then filed the present suit praying for a declaration that the order of removal was illegal and invalid and that he was entitled to reinstatement. The suit was contested by the Union of India, who maintained that the order removing the Petitioner from service was valid and in accordance with law.

The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the Union of India, the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra Division, has set aside the trial court decree and dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff now appeals.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that after the Appellant had been acquitted by the Special Judge in the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act it was not open to the Financial Commissioner to remove him from service and the charges against the Appellant should have been dropped. It is pointed out that the allegations with reference to which the Special Judge acquitted the Appellant were the same as the allegations forming the subject of the departmental enquiry. In my opinion, the contention of the Appellant is misconceived. Not infrequently a departmental proceeding and a criminal trial are simultaneously taken against an employee with reference to certain charges. The Courts have held that it would be proper in such a case for the Departmental Tribunal to stay the proceeding before it pending decision by the criminal court. While it is not obligatory that the departmental proceeding should be stayed, it is expedient to do so in the interests of fair play. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan,

That does not mean, however, that the findings in the criminal trial must necessarily be adopted by the departmental tribunal. Quite conceivably, the evidence on which the criminal court has proceeded may not be the same as the material before the departmental tribunal, and it is possible that while the case in the criminal court may fail for want of evidence there may be sufficient evidence forthcoming in the departmental proceeding. The proceeding in the criminal court may also fail for want of sanction or other technical ground, while no such infirmity may vitiate the departmental proceeding. The Appellant relies on Shaik Kasim Vs. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chingleput Dn. and Another, but it seems to me that the Madras High Court in that case has not taken a different view. Reference has also been made to Kirpal Singh v. The State of Punjab 1969 SLR 120, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that adverse remarks made against an employee on the basis of the facts of a criminal case should not be allowed to stand after he had been acquitted. The case is distinguishable. The remarks there did not follow upon any independent enquiry. The facts were tried in the criminal case alone.

On the only ground raised by the Appellant I am unable to hold that the order of removal made against the Appellant is invalid or contrary to law.

After the arguments were concluded, learned Counsel for the Appellant made an oral request for permission to file additional evidence. In the absence of any clear indication of what evidence is proposed, and any justification for producing it at this last stage, the request must be turned down.

The appeal fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.