Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr. K. Muniratnam, vs Central Industrial Security Force Cisf ... on 27 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.20232 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner is challenging the order of removal from service issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF (SZ) vide proceeding No.V-15013/06/2K/L&R/(SZ)/7729, dated 01.12.2000 and subsequent proceedings dated 30.03.2001, 02.04.2002, 11.12.2009 as illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner seeks reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector in CISF on 16.07.1984. The petitioner was promoted as an Inspector in the month of February, 1993. The petitioner was posted to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in December, 1995 and was working in the Crime and Intelligence Wing. On 09.12.1998 the petitioner was placed under suspension and memorandum of charges dated 17.04.1999 was issued to the petitioner. The following charges were framed against the petitioner.
Articles of Charge - I That the said No.841110014 Insp./Exe.K.Muniratnam while functioning as I/c.Crime & Int.wing of CISF Unit, VSP Vizag during the period on 20.08.1998 he neither reported about the incriminatory motives involved by the personnel engaged for the works of M/s.Ajanta Steels, at Visakhapatnam (V), concealed the matter with him nor took any initiative to curb such incidents in the plant. This act on the part of Insp./Exe.K.Muniratnam amounts to negligence of duty.
//2// Articles of Charge - II That during the period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No.841110014 Insp./Exe.K.Muniratnam of CISF Unit VSP(V) seized validity expired gate pass of Shri S.K.Basha the supervisor of M/s.Ajanta steels during 15th to 20th November, 1998 which he neither deposited at pass section nor informed the matter to the authorities and kept in his possession with malafide intention. This act on the part of Insp./Exe.K.Muniratnam amounts dereliction of duty.
Articles of Charge - III That during the period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said No.841110014 Insp./Exe K.Muniratnam of CISF Unit VSP (V) lended a huge amount to Shri Venkatram Proprietor of M/s.Ajanta Steels to whom he is having official dealings. This act on the part of Insp./Exe K.Muniratnam amounts to violation of service rules.
Articles of Charge - IV That No.841110014 Insp./Exe K.Muniratnam of CISF Unit VSP(V) visited the location of yard cum office of M/s.Ajanta Steel at his own by Government jeep provided to CIW wing for his own business where he was trapped by CBI Officials on 06.12.1998. By this act, he failed to maintain proper conduct and thereby tarnished the good image of CISF which amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duty on the part of Insp./Exe.K.Muniratnam.
3. An enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and charge I, III and IV were said to be proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report on 21.08.2000. The DIG, CISF, Chennai after considering the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner imposed a penalty of removal from service and the period of suspension from 19.12.1998 till the passing of the order dated 01.12.2000 as not on duty. The petitioner filed an appeal and review before the appropriate authorities of the respondents, in vain. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CBI case against the petitioner //3// ended up in conviction in CC.No.22 of 1999 after trial by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam on 04.02.2002.
The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court and this Court vide Judgment dated 10.09.2009 allowed the Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2002. The learned counsel submits that the articles of charge were leveled against the petitioner on account of the trap laid by CBI Officials. It is alleged in the charge that the petitioner approached Ajantha Steels on 06.12.1998 at about 06.20PM and obtained an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the Proprietor of Ajantha Steels as illegal gratification. He further submits that the petitioner was acquitted in appeal by this Court and the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case which was registered by CBI in pursuance of the trap laid on 06.12.1998, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry was conducted on the basis of the registration of a case under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The learned //4// counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as the petitioner was found not guilty and the disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty and held that charges I, III and IV are proved only on account of the registration of a false case by CBI.
5. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was found guilty of charges framed and the disciplinary authority has conducted a detailed enquiry into the misdeeds of the petitioner and as such does not deserve any mercy.
6. The learned Central Government Counsel submits that the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner on 01.12.2000 much prior to the conviction of the petitioner in CC.No.22 of 1999. The petitioner was found guilty by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam on 04.02.2002.It is also not the case of the petitioner that the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and the witnesses before the Special Court are one and the same. The witnesses before the Enquiry Officer are as follows
a) Shivender Kumar, CIW, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam,
b) I.S.K Reddy, Constable, CIW, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam,
c) P.Suresh, Constable, CIW, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam,
d) D.V.S.Prakasa Rao, Driver of Jeep.No.AP31-T-7589.
//5// The appendix of evidence in CC.No.22 of 1999 would show that the following witnesses are examined from PWs.1 to 10
a) V.Venkata Ram, Business, Madhavadhara Vuda Colony, Visakhapatnam,
b) K.Hanumantha Rao, Officer, Andhra Bank, AppikatlaBranch, Guntur District,
c) A.N.V.P.V.R.Murthy, Senior Research & Development Inspector, S.E.Railway, Visakhapatnam,
d) Shaik John Easha, Business, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam
e) I.Koteswara Rao @ Koti, Driver, Yellapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam,
f) K.Vijaya Kumar, Deputy Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam,
g) S.K.Dubey, Manager, Marketing, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant at Bombay,
h) Y.T.R.Prasad, Inspector of Police, Maredpally, Hyderabad,
i) D.L.N.Varma, Inspector of Police, C.B.I, Visakhapatnam
j) S.D.Misra, Inspector of Police, C.B.I, Bhuvaneswar.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments; Santhosh Kumar Sur Vs. Union of India and others1, M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Coal Mines Limited, G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others2, Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement on account of being acquitted in the criminal case and the 1 (ILR) 2010 IV Delhi 778 2 2006 (5) SCC 446 3 2020 (9) SCC 471 //6// articles of charge were framed only after the registration of crime by the CBI under the prevention of corruption Act against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was honourably acquitted at the appellate stage and thus he is entitled for all consequential benefits for the period during which he was not on duty and illegally removed from service.
8. The learned Central Government Counsel submits that the respondents have not gone into the merits of the case registered against the petitioner by CBI. In so far as, articles of Charge - IV is concerned the respondents have only concluded that the petitioner failed to maintain proper conduct and thereby tarnished the good image of CISF which amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duty. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents there is no procedural flaw in conducting departmental enquiry and that the departmental proceedings do not overlap the charges framed against the petitioner and the CBI Case and as such acquittal in the CBI Case would be of no consequence when the evidence and witness before the disciplinary authority and the CBI is completely different and distinct.
9. It is also submitted that in the disciplinary proceedings whether the charged employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case //7// may be. Whereas, in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against the employee are established and if established, what sentence can be imposed on him. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on R.Subbarao Vs. Chief Vigilance Officer 4 held that criminal proceedings and enquiry can go on simultaneously.
19.Recently, in K.Sridhar Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation8, this Court after considering the judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court on the point, reiterated the settled legal position that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings may continue simultaneously and pendency of the criminal proceedings is no legal bar in conducting departmental proceedings. This Court further held that the gravity of the charge is not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated questions of law and fact and even when the charge is found to be serious involving complicated questions of law and fact and there is likelihood of the prejudice to be caused to the delinquent employee in criminal proceedings, the Court has to keep in consideration that the criminal trials prolong indefinitely and the departmental proceedings cannot be suspended or delayed unduly, and even where the departmental proceedings have been stayed they can be resumed even pending criminal proceedings. It is apt to refer Paragraphs 14 to 23 of K.Sridhar (supra) as under:- "14. In Capt.M. Paul Anthony 5 (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, on review of the case laws on the subject, identified the broad principles for application in a given case. It is apt to refer paragraph No.22 of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) as under: "22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted 4 2022 Live Law AP 121 (WP 19655 of 2011) 5 1999 (3) SCC 679 //8// simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the standard point of Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
//9//
22. Crime is an act of commission, in violation of law or misconduct of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in service and officials of the public service. In criminal cases, strict rules of evidence are applicable. In departmental proceedings, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply. The delinquent employee is liable to be punished on proof of misconduct.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 decided on 04.12.2023 had considered the following questions
a) Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justified ?
b) On the facts of the case, what is the effect of the acquittal, ordered by the Appellate Judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry ?
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the legal position as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D.Reddy 6 , Union Bank of India Vs. Biswanath Batthacharge 7 , Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram 8, G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others 9. There in that case the evidence and the charges were the same before the Disciplinary Authority and the prosecuting agency. In the present case on hand, the four charges leveled against the petitioner, three charges were proved.With respect to Charge - IV, which relates to the charged officer trapped by CBI Officials on 06.12.1998 was considered on 6 2023 (11) Scale 530 7 2022 (13) SCC 329 8 2013 (1) SCC 598 9 2006 (5) SCC 446 //10// merits at the appellate stage and the petitioner was acquitted. The charges I and III would sustain.
12. The petitioner has sought for reinstatement into service after allowing of criminal appeal No.184 of 2002. The petitioner made a representation dated 23.11.2009 bringing to the notice of the respondent/authority the acquittal in the criminal case and sought for reinstatement, the same was rejected by the respondent/authority on the ground that there is no provision for second appeal under the CISF Act vide orders dated 11.12.2009. On examination of the witnesses examined before the disciplinary authority and the witnesses examined in the criminal trial there is no common witness. As such, it cannot be inferred that the charges considered by the disciplinary authority and the charged offence tried before the Criminal Court are based on same set of evidences. The Appellate Court while allowing the appeal held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused officer beyond all reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court considered the evidences adduced before the trial Court and has found fault with the trial Court in coming to a conclusion that ingredients of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were proved.
13. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the material available on record and taking into consideration the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings.
14. The petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the present writ petition on the sole ground that he was acquitted in a criminal case and the departmental enquiry found fault with the conduct of the petitioner and passed the order of removal from service. I //11// see no infirmity in the conduct of departmental proceedings and imposing the punishment of removal from service. The writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated:27.12.2023.
KGM //12// THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.20232 of 2010 Dated 27.12.2023 KGM