Ramphal Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Police Department and was working in Police Lines, Rewa. It is alleged that on 10.6.2017 at around 12.00 pm, the petitioner had threatened the prosecutrix on the point of knife when she refused to remove her scarf while travelling in an Auto. On the complaint of the prosecutrix, crime was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa vide Crime No.376/2017 for the offence under section 294, 323, 506 of IPC and 25-B of the Arms Act. Departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner and charges were framed against him. In the said departmental enquiry, the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner vide enquiry report dated 2.5.2018 (annexure P/6). The reply to the notice was filed by the petitioner vide his application dated 23.5.2018. However, vide order dated 6.6.2018 the S.P. Rewa dismissed the petitioner from service finding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent trial court having jurisdiction and the judgment of acquittal has been brought on record by filing an application I.A.No.10820/2023. It is submitted that as the petitioner has been acquitted on the same set of charges as in the departmental enquiry, therefore, the punishment of termination from service passed vide order dated 6.6.2018 (annexure P/4) be quashed, thereafter the order passed in appeal dated 5.12.2018 (annexure P/2) and the order dated 16.4.2019 (annexure P/1) passed in mercy appeal be also quashed. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy v. Supt. of Police, (2015) 2 SCC 365, to state that once the delinquent has been acquitted honourably by the competent criminal court then the same is required to be taken note of in the departmental proceedings and accordingly, such punishment order passed in the departmental enquiry deserves to be quashed. In both the cases charges were the same and the petitioner has got clean acquittal in the criminal court, therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S.Bhaskar Reddy (supra), the termination order passed against the petitioner be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that the judgment which has been placed on record is not of honourable acquittal, instead it is being passed by giving the benefit of doubt. It is submitted that in both the proceedings of departmental inquiry and criminal trial the principle to adjudicate is one based on preponderance of probabilities and the other is on strict proof. Therefore, the judgment passed by competent Criminal Court granting acquittal to the petitioner based on benefit of doubt would not automatically absolve the petitioner from the charges leveled in the departmental enquiry.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the judgment of the Criminal Court, placed on record with I.A.No.10820/2023, it is found that the complainant who is a lady has turned hostile before the Criminal Court. The allegation against the petitioner is of pulling the scarf of the complainant and threatening her on the point of knife. From perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded before the Criminal Court, it is found that the complainant has not identified the petitioner as an accused who had committed the offence with the lady. However, from perusal of the statement recorded in the departmental inquiry said lady has been cross examined by the petitioner himself and she has categorically stated that the petitioner was involved in commission of the offence. There are two sets of evidence available on record, one is of departmental enquiry and another is of Criminal Court. The principle which has been laid down by the Honourable Apex Court (Larger Bench) in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF, (2019) 7 SCC 797, is that acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from liability under the disciplinary proceedings. It is further held that in criminal law, burden of proof is on prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability".

The charges in the departmental inquiry is that by committing offence with the lady, the petitioner, who is a member of the disciplined force, has committed a grave misconduct while performing his duty as the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed such offence in his official uniform. However, in the criminal trial the charges were that the petitioner has committed offence under sections 294, 323 and 506B of IPC, therefore, the charges in both the proceedings were not exactly the same, but relatable to each other. But, that does not itself gives a ground to the petitioner to seek quashment of the order of punishment on the ground of acquittal granted by the Criminal Court of law. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad (supra), has held as under :-

The principle which has emerged from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that mere acquittal from the criminal charges by a competent Criminal Court of law does not itself absolve the liability of the delinquent in a departmental proceedings. The petitioner being a member of disciplined Force is required to conduct his behavior according to the duty cast on him.

From perusal of the enquiry report, it is found that the petitioner himself has cross examined the complainant who has categorically stated that the petitioner was the person who has misbehaved with the complainant in an Auto and tried to uncover the scarf of the complainant, which is not expected from a person who is a member of disciplined Force and cast with the duty to maintain law and order and discipline. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, on the basis of judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner by granting the benefit of doubt cannot itself be the ground to quash the order of punishment looking to the serious charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, which have been found to be proved on the basis of statements made by the complainant.

Therefore, no case is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.