AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This order shall dispose of Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 2419, 4480 and 4481 of 2006, as common question of law and facts are involved.
The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of Charge Memos, alleging serious misconduct, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing all the Charge Memos, on the ground, that prior to the framing of charge sheet, it was necessary to investigate the allegations against a public servant.
Further submission of the Petitioner, is that there cannot be any investigation before registering a case u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure., and any material collected other than u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure., cannot be taken as a reason for disciplinary proceedings.
It is also the submission of the Petitioner, that the charge sheet can be framed against the Petitioner only on the basis of the report of Investigation by the Police Officer, and the materials other than the materials collected during investigation can not be the basis for framing charges.
Further submission of the Petitioner, is that neither the Public Prosecutor Grade I or any person has been appointed as a Prosecutor for disciplinary proceedings, and unless the qualification and mode of appointment is determined, no proceedings can be initiated. That too without material being collected by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, no action can be taken against him.
On the submissions made hereinabove, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks quashing of the charge memos being illegal, without jurisdiction, and bad in law, that the first Respondent had no jurisdiction to frame charges on the basis of materials collected, otherwise than by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, which in absence of F.I.R cannot be collected.
The contentions are totally misconceived. It is open to the competent authorities to frame the charges of misconduct on the available evidence for holding a Departmental Enquiry. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to have the investigation done by the police officer. It is only in case of registration of F.I.R, that the investigation can be conducted by the Police as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is independent of the Departmental Enquiry. The contention as well as the submissions made, therefore, are totally misconceived, which deserve to be rejected.
At the time of argument, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner only contended, that the charge memos deserve to be quashed as the Petitioner has been acquitted of the charge in the criminal case.
The plea raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is again misconceived.
Firstly, that no such facts have been pleaded in the case or grounds taken, and secondly, for the reason that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Southern Railway Officers Assn. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, was pleased to lay down as under:
Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge".
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vs. P. Kata Rao, has laid down that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated, to continue therewith. The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from.
For the reasons stated above, finding no merit, these writ petitions are dismissed.
No costs.