AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas
The applicant, after being acquitted from the charges under section 409 IPC by the criminal court , has approached this tribunal for seeking a direction against the respondent to treat him on duty w.e.f the date of his acquittal till his attaining the age of superannuation.
Facts of the case in brief are as under :
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 02.04.1981 in the Postal Department. A disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against him on the charges of committing criminal breach of trust of money deposited by the customers of the post office, committed in the year 1996. The inquiry resulted into imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the applicant by the disciplinary authority, i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur, vide order dated 31.07.1998 (Annex. A/4). However, the appellate authority modified the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement vide order dated 13.05.1999 (Annex. A/5).
Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant preferred OA No. 155/2000 before this Bench which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2002. A writ petition No. 3394/2002 filed against the aforesaid order of this Bench was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court on 16.02.2009. It is pertinent to note that for the alleged criminal breach of trust, the criminal proceedings was also initiated in FIR No. 102/1997 against the applicant alongwith one Govind Ram who expired during trial. After conclusion of the trial , the applicant was acquitted on 31.03.2016 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan in the aforesaid criminal proceedings under Section 409 of IPC.
Upon his acquittal by criminal court , the applicant filed a petition dated 26.10.2017 seeking a review of the penalty of compulsory retirement in departmental proceedings. When the applicant did not receive any response regarding his prayer, he first filed an application on 08.01.2018 and thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 248/2018 wherein ex-parte directions were issued to the respondents to decide his petition dated 26.10.2017. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the respondents vide order dated 13.12.2019 (Annex. A/1)impugned herein, rejected the applicant’s petition with the observations that the applicant was personally responsible for the misappropriation of Government money, which was established during inquiry. The punishment was awarded commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against him. Further, the departmental and criminal proceedings against the applicant were based on a separate set of charges, therefore, the fate of the criminal proceedings has no effect on the punishment awarded as a result of departmental proceedings. The case relating to misappropriation of amount pertaining to RD A/c NO. 160458 was included in the criminal proceedings and not in the departmental proceedings. The applicant has preferred the revision petition against the order of punishment passed as a result of departmental proceedings; therefore, the issue raised by the applicant in respect of the case included in the criminal proceedings has no relevance to the present case.
Being aggrieved with the rejection of his petition, the applicant has come before this Bench by filing the present OA seeking a direction against the respondents to treat the period from 31.07.1998 [the date of compulsory retirement] to 30.09.2009 [the date of attaining the age of superannuation] as duty with consequential benefits.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant inter-alia contended that after being acquitted in a criminal case, the applicant is entitled to the relief sought for in the present OA. However, learned counsel for the applicant would concede that the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant had attained finality.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the subsequent acquittal of the applicant has no bearing on the outcome of the departmental proceedings. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, AIR 2020 SC 1878 and Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Mani, AIR 2018 SC 384.
Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it is an admitted position that the result of a departmental proceeding initiated in the year 1996 had attained finality with the rejection of the writ petition N. 3394/2002 filed by the applicant against the order of this Tribunal passed in OA NO. 155/2000 on 16.02.2009.
Now the question arises as to whether on his acquittal in the criminal case pertaining to the same incident, the applicant is entitled to get any relief as sought by him?
Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the criminal court reveals that the applicant has been acquitted mainly on the ground that the deposit holder did not state anything in their statement against him. The criminal court did not opine that no criminal breach of trust took place. The acquittal was mainly on the ground of not supporting the prosecution’s case by some deposit holders for the reason that they had been repaid by the applicant before registering the First Information Report. The criminal court was also impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the accused (applicant herein) that in cases of less than Rs 5,000/-, ordinarily departmental proceedings should be initiated and criminal proceedings should not be registered by the Government. The criminal court also observed that in the investigation, criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs 1,512/- was established but some of the witnesses appeared before the court deposed that they were repaid the amount. Considering the reasons for acquittal by the criminal court, we are of the opinion that the applicant’s acquittal was not a clear-cut acquittal for the purposes of determining his misconduct in disciplinary proceedings, but he got the benefit of doubt keeping in view the quantum of the amount involved and the fact of receiving back the amount by deposit holders. In view of the above, the fact of acquittal in the criminal case has no bearing on the fate of departmental proceedings already finalised long back after rejection of the OA by this Tribunal against the order of appellate authority passed in the year 1999 and also dismissal of the writ petition NO. 3394/2002 on 16.02.2009.
Otherwise also, in the present case, the challenge is not to the order of punishment imposed in departmental proceedings, therefore, there is no justification in seeking direction to treat the period from 31.07.1998 to 30.09.2009 [The date of compulsory retirement to the date of superannuation] as duty. In view of the above, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the present OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.