Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Raghuram Babu vs Railway Protection Force, South ... on 6 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD661, 2001(1)ALT131, [2001(88)FLR497]
Author: I. Venkatanarayana
Bench: I. Venkatanarayana
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the departmental enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet No.B/XP/227/153/97/05, dated 8-9-1997 as illegal, null and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. '
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are set out as hereunder: The writ petitioner, who is a B.Com Graduate, was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force in the year 1988 and subsequently he was promoted as Inspector in the year 1994. He was placed under suspension from 18-9-1995 on an allegation that he was responsible for excess delivery of scrap worth about Rs.10,000-00. In the month of September, 1997 he was charge-sheeted followed by a departmental enquiry and the departmental enquiry also has been concluded and the 3rd respondent, by his proceedings dated 9-6-1999, has held that the charge was proved against him. The charge against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that he allowed delivery of excess quantity of scrap. Prior to the initiation of departmental enquiry, a criminal case was also filed against him for the same offence in Crime No.3 of 1995 which was numbered as CC No.83 of 1996 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways at Vijayawada. The charge in CC No.83 of 1996 is that the petitioner was in unlawful possession of the Railway property punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. The alleged charge against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that he that he allowed delivery of excess quantity of scrap leading to its being in the unlawful possession of somebody. The charge in the departmental enquiry and the charge in the criminal case are one and the same. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, has acquitted the petitioner in CC No.83 of 1996 by his judgment dated 18-1-1999. The contention of the writ petitioner is that when the charge in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are one and the same and when the witnesses and documents in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are also one and the same and when he was acquitted of the said charge in the criminal case, it cannot be held in the departmental enquiry that he is guilty of the very same charge of which he was acquitted in the criminal case. It is his contention that the judgment in the criminal case is earlier to the finding given in the departmental enquiry. The writ petitioner placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M. Paul Anothony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 AIR SCW 1098. In this Judgment the Apex Court has held that based on identical set of facts and evidence when an employee is acquitted in the criminal case, the said order of acquittal can conclude the departmental proceedings and the order passed in the departmental enquiry is liable to be set aside.
3. In the instant case the writ petitioner was charge-sheeted of having delivered excess scrap and the criminal Court has categorically found that the petitioner is not guilty of the charge. Hence, on the very same set of facts and evidence the writ petitioner was found not guilty. In fact the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is that the charge framed against the petitioner was sought to be proved by police and panch witnesses who were examined in the criminal case. The same witnesses were examined both in the criminal case and also in the departmental enquiry. In such a situation when the petitioner was acquitted by judicial pronouncement holding that he is not guilty of the charge, it would be unjust and unfair to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.
4. The writ petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings on the ground of discrimination also. The writ petitioner placed before me the proceedings of the Divisional Section Commissioner, RPF., Secunderabad dated 30-9-1998 in which on identical facts and circumstances another employee by name Sri C. Mallikharjuna Reddy a constable, was re-instated into service treating the period of suspension as on duty. He was re-instated into service on the sole ground that he was acquitted of the very same charge in CC No.54 of 1995 and the petitioner claims that denial of the same benefit to him would amount to discrimination. From the above proceedings of the Divisional Section Commissioner, RPF dated 30-9-1998 it is clear that one Mr. Mallikharjuna Reddy, a constable was reinstated into service on the ground that the charge levelled against the said constable in CC No.54 of 1995 and the DAR case is on the same ground and since the accused was acquitted in the said CC the DAR case initiated against the said constable has been dropped and the period of suspension was also treated as on duty. In such circumstances, I do not seen any reason why the same benefit should not be extended to the writ petitioner. Denial of the same benefit to the writ petitioner would amount to discrimination and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be struck down.
5. For the afore-mentioned discussion and following the judgment of the Apex Court, I deem it a fit case to allow the writ petition declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the departmental enquiry against the petitioner or holding him guilty of the very same charge in the departmental enquiry as null and void and direct re-instatement of the petitioner into service forthwith.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.