Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board vs Laxmi Rani

Challenge in this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of M.P. Ucacha Nyayalay (Khand Peeth Kop Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 is made to an order dated 17-07-2014, passed by the writ court in W.P.No.10564/14, whereby prayer made for quashing of termination of the appellant only on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case has been dismissed.

The appellant was working in the Police Department, he was Incharge of Police Station Karanjiya, District Dindori. On 10-09-1992 an offence vide Crime No.211/12 under section 376 of IPC was registered against him in Police Station Shahpura, He was suspended, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and thereafter on the allegations as are mentioned in the charge sheet, he was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry and he was dismissed from service on 30-08-2013. The allegation against him in the departmental inquiry was that even though he was holding a responsible post as Incharge of Police Station, inspite of written complaint received with regard to missing of a person, he did not conduct any inquiry into the matter, displayed a conduct which was unbecoming of a Govt. employee and in the name of finding out the missing person a lady (the prosecutrix) was apprehended by him and thereafter he misused his official position and committed the offence. More than three articles of amputation in this regard with regard to dereliction in the performance of dues, misusing his official position and committing acts resulting into service misconduct were alleged against him. Initially a charge sheet was challenged on the ground that the charge sheet and the disciplinary inquiry initiated at the instance of Inspector General of Police is unsustainable and therefore, the charge sheet should be quashed. The petition was allowed, the charge sheet was quashed and liberty was granted to the disciplinary authority to issue fresh charge sheet . Accordingly fresh charge sheet was issued and the inquiry is pending. In the meanwhile the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 376 of IPC in the sessions trial. He thereafter filed the present writ petition for quashing the departmental inquiry on the ground that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental inquiry cannot be proceeded, the writ court having rejected the same, this writ appeal is filed.

Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony(1999 AIR SCW 1098) argued that the allegations in the charge sheet and in the criminal case are identical in nature, the witnesses and the evidence are common and therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony(supra), the departmental inquiry should be quashed. He therefore, argued that once the appellant is acquitted of the same charge, the departmental inquiry is unsustainable.

On the contrary Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents invited our attention to the findings recorded by the learned writ court and placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Narender Singh, and various other cases referred by the learned writ court to say that mere acquittal of the employee in the criminal case is not a ground for quashing the departmental inquiry. It is argued that even after acquittal in the criminal case, the departmental inquiry into the matter is permissible, it is pointed out that the allegation in the departmental inquiry are different from the allegations in the criminal case.

We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the law on the subject of proceedings into the departmental inquiry even after acquittal of the employee in the criminal case is now well settled, all the judgments in the matter have been considered by the learned Single Judge and distinction has been drawn. It is well settled principles of law that mere acquittal in the criminal case is not a ground for holding that no departmental inquiry can be conducted. That apart if the facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it would be seen that the allegations against the appellant in the criminal case was only with regard to commission of offence under section 376 of IPC but in the charge sheet issued to him for which departmental inquiry is proposed to be conducted, it is alleged that he was a incharge of police station and when complaint about the missing person was received, he misused his official position and did not properly conducted the inquiry into the complaint of the missing persons instead he caught hold of the prosecutrix and in the name of inquiry being conducted to trace out the missing person is said to have committed the offence. That apart it is alleged that from 11-09-2012 onwards in conducting the inquiry into the matter of missing person, he misused his official position as a police officer, he kept the prosecutrix in illegal custody. The question involved in the departmental inquiry is a question pertaining to the conduct of the petitioner as a police officer and the act committed which is unbecoming of a police officer, this is a service misconduct. The allegations and the evidence in the departmental inquiry are entirely different from that in the criminal trial. The appellant being police officer has misused his official position, therefore, the departmental inquiry into the matter of his conduct cannot be quashed on the ground canvassed.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere into the matter, the learned writ court has correctly applied the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.