Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Singh Pno-112510611 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 August, 2024
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59897 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4014 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh Pno-112510611 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Charitra Pandey,Shashank Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard.
2. This Court has passed the order dated 22.5.2024 which reads as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of a complaint lodged by a lady, a criminal case had been lodged against him under Sections 376, 504 and 506 of IPC vide Case Crime No.1053 of 2021. The petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-6 of the petition. It is further contended that the learned trial court has gone to the extent that upon finding that the complaint itself as lodged by the lady has been found to be false as such the complainant has been directed to be proceeded against under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
3. Subsequent thereto the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.04.2024 has been issued to the petitioner on the same charges in which the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court.
4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 In re : Ram Lal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 04.12.2023, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges as leveled in the criminal case consequently for the same charges the petitioner cannot be proceeded against departmentally and consequently the impugned charge-sheet merits to be quashed on this ground alone.
5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the Superintendent of Police but the impugned charge-sheet has been issued by Additional Superintendent of police and thus charge-sheet which has been issued by an incompetent officer merits to be quashed on this ground alone.
6. Further, reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case Kedar Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. & Ors : 2005(3) ESC 1955 to contend that the Division Bench of this Court after considering Regulations 492 and 493 has held that once the criminal court has acquitted an employee, he cannot be proceeded against departmentally.
7. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.
8. List this case in the next week as fresh."
3. On earlier occasion, the instructions letter dated 6.8.2024 was shown to the Court which is itself on record, therefore, the same is taken on record.
4. The perusal of the acquittal order dated 11.3.2024 passed in S.T. No. 1091 of 2022 (annexure-6) reveals that the charge pursuant to the Case Crime No. 1053 of 2021, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad could not be established against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. The departmental charge-sheet dated 9.4.2024 is also having similar charge to the effect that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid case, therefore, the image of the Department has tarnished. The witnesses in the departmental charge-sheet are the same, who have been examined before the criminal court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & others, decided on 04.12.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023, whereby the Apex Court vide para nos. 13 and 27 has held as under:
"13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]
27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank (supra)."
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in re: Ram Lal (supra), I am of the considered opinion that since on the same set of fact and charge criminal trial has been concluded in favour of the petitioner, whereby he has been acquitted and in the departmental charge-sheet, similar charge has been levelled and same witnesses have been indicated, therefore, the Department may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.4.2024.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.4.2024 issued by the opposite party no. 4 i.e., Superintendent of Police (Regional), Intelligence Department, U.P., Gorakhpur under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal), 1991 against the petitioner is hereby set aside/quashed.
8. The writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties not to proceed against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Shravan [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]