Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs Shiv Narayan Singh Rajoriya And Anr. on 31 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 211 (M. P.) (GWALIOR BENCH)
ORDER S. Samvatsar, J.
1. This petition is filed by the State challenging order dated 11.7.2002 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior. Bench in OA No. 1293/99, whereby the Tribunal has set. aside the order of termination dated 3.6.1999 (Annexure A-7).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC for short) against the quota reserved for physically handicapped person on the basis of medical certificate to the effect that he is deaf.
3. A departmental enquiry was held against him on the charge that he has submitted a forged medical certificate to obtain employment under the quota reserved for physically handicapped person. After departmental enquiry, his services were terminated vide order dated 3.6.1999 on the ground that in the enquiry it was found that certificate produced by the respondent No. 1 was forged.
4. The Tribunal found that a criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1, which was numbered as 253/95 and tried by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Drchha District Tikamgarh. In the said criminal case, respondent No. 1 was acquitted from the offence and therefore his services cannot be terminated by holding departmental enquiry. The Tribunal for this purpose has relied on judgment of Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Sharat Gold Mines Ltd. . In para 34 and 35 of this judgment, the Apex Court has held that the criminal case as also the departmental proceeding were based on identical set of facts namely the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles thereform'. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case, but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situated, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte departmental proceedings, to stand.
5. Thus, In peculiar circumstances that the "raid and recovery" was not found proved in the criminal case the Apex Court has held that on the set of facts contrary findings in the enquiry should not be allowed to prevail, hence exonerated the delinquent.
6. From bare reading of the judgment of the Criminal Court, it is clear that Criminal Court has given a benefit of doubt on the ground that CMO, who has issued certificate (Annexure p-7) was not examined In the Criminal Court. As a result of non-examination, the Court has given a benefit of doubt to the accused. This is not a situation in the present case. The Apex Court In the case of Senior Supdt. of Post Offices v. A Gopalan AIR 1999 SC 1514 has laid down that a departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding on the same charge are Initiated, the acquittal of the delinquent officer by the Criminal Court does not conclude departmental proceedings in respect of same charge., The Apex Court has held that in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt while in departmental proceedings the standard of proof for proving the charge is preponderance of probabilities. Thus, standard of proof in both the cases is different. In the case of Nelson Motis v. Union of India 1992 AIR SCW 2304, the Apex Court has rejected the contention that disciplinary proceeding could not be continued in the face of the acquittal in the criminal case. The same view is taken by the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. . In that case, the Apex Court has held that pendency of criminal case does not preclude employer from taking action in departmental enquiry. Thus, in the present case we find that the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of termination on the ground that respondent No. 1 was acquitted in the criminal case.
6. Another ground assigned by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of termination is view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan . This judgment is further explained by the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad v. B. Karunakar . In that case the Apex Court has held that merely because copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent is not a ground for exonerating the employee. It is for the employee to satisfy the Court that due to non-supply of the enquiry report a grave prejudice is caused to him. In the present case, the delinquent has failed to show that what prejudice is caused to him for non-supply the copy of the enquiry report. Hence, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,
7. In the result, petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.7.2002 in OA No. 1293/99 is set aside. No costs.