Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mannalal Meena vs State Of Raj And Anr on 24 November, 2022
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6710/2018
Mannalal Meena S/o Shri Devlal, aged around 50 years, Resident
Of Aankha Khedi Road, Saraswat Colony, Tehsil - Chhipabarod,
District Baran, Rajasthan-325221
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Through Director, Directorate Of Secondary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. District Education Officer, District Baran, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Additional Government Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 24/11/2022
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the termination order dated 05.04.2010, whereby respondents terminated services of the petitioner on account of his conviction under Section 302 IPC.
2. The petitioner has further prayed that he may be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity service w.e.f. 15.09.2006.
3. The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Assistant on probation, for a period of two years, vide order dated 25.06.1988 and on successful completion of probation period, he was regularized w.e.f. 24.07.1992.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM)
(2 of 11) [CW-6710/2018]
4. The petitioner has pleaded that while he was discharging his duties, he came to be implicated in a Criminal Case, registered on 13.09.2006, at Police Station Chhipabarod for alleged offence under Section 302 IPC and as such, FIR No.282/2006 was registered against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was taken in judicial custody on 15.09.2006 and the employer-State exercising its powers under Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 23.12.2006 w.e.f. 15.09.2006.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that the trial of the criminal case, conducted against the petitioner, resulted into his conviction under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.93/2006, by order dated 10.10.2007.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that the trial court without considering the evidence on record and basic principles of law, convicted the petitioner and as such, on the basis of such conviction, he came to be terminated from service by impugned order dated 05.04.2010.
8. The petitioner has pleaded that the conviction order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra District Baran was challenged by him before the High Court and as such, he filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1775/2007 and the High Court vide its order dated 03.06.2016, set-aside the order of conviction and honourably acquitted the petitioner on merits from all the charges levelled against him and State was directed to set the petitioner free.
9. The petitioner has pleaded that after his honourable acquittal from criminal charges, he submitted an application before the (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (3 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] District Education Officer on 01.11.2016 and also annexed all the relevant documents & judgments and requested him to take the petitioner back on duty.
10. The petitioner has further pleaded that since no reply was received from the office of the respondents, he again sent a letter to the respondent-Director, Board of Secondary, Education and requested that the petitioner since has not been found involved, at all, in a criminal case and he has been acquitted honourably and as such, he was required to be reinstated back in service.
11. The petitioner has pleaded that due to illegal action of the respondents, he ultimately sent a legal notice for demand of justice to them and when no reply was received of the said notice, the petitioner filed the instant petition.
12. Learned counsel-Mr. Rinesh Gupta appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions:-
(i). The termination order dated 05.04.2010 was passed on account of conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case tried under Section 302 IPC and on criminal appeal filed by the petitioner, the same order of conviction being set-aside on merits, the respondents were under duty to pass an order of reinstatement of the petitioner.
(ii). The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Appeal was an order which honourably acquitted the petitioner of all the charges and after analyzing entire evidence, this Court came to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case miserably against the petitioner and as such, the honourable acquittal of the petitioner ought to have resulted into quashing and recalling of order dated 05.04.2010, passed by the respondents.(Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM)
(4 of 11) [CW-6710/2018]
(iii). The termination of services of the petitioner had not resulted into initiation of any disciplinary proceedings and in absence of any disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, if the conviction of the petitioner was the only basis, then no other option was left with the respondents, except to reinstate back the petitioner.
(iv). The criminal case against the petitioner has been decided and the natural consequence of same is wiping out the conviction and all other allegations levelled against the petitioner right from the first stage of lodging of FIR and the stigma of conviction of the petitioner, stood completely erased.
(v). The petitioner has been acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, it has to be treated as honourable acquittal and as such, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Another Vs. S. Samuthir AM, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 598.
13. Per contra, learned Additional Government Counsel-Mr. S. Zakawat Ali appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondents had rightly passed the termination order dated 05.04.2010 and as such, the acquittal of the petitioner by the High Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner, would not result into his reinstatement.
14. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the order dated 05.04.2010 was passed at the stage when petitioner stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and considering the involvement of the petitioner in a serious crime, the respondents (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (5 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] had taken the right decision to terminate the services of the petitioner.
15. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner or his conviction being set-aside by the Division Bench will ipso facto not result into reinstatement of the petitioner and as such, the benefit which has been extended by this Court while deciding the criminal appeal, is only on a technical ground and as such, the petitioner cannot be reinstated back.
16. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench while deciding the criminal appeal would reveal that the evidence which was led by the prosecution to prove the case, has been ignored only on a technical ground and as such, no benefit can be given to the petitioner only on the ground of the prosecution witnesses, not supporting the theory of the prosecution.
17. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
18. This Court before adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, deems it proper to quote the relevant paras of the order passed by Division Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1775/2007, which reads as under:-
"26. FIR No.285/2006 (Ex.D-5) was registered on 14.9.2006 on the basis of Parcha Bayan recorded by police on 13.9.2006 at about 11.30 AM at Government Hospital, Baran. In Parcha Bayan, complainant Ram Swaroop has informed the police on 13.9.2006 at 11.30 AM that Rajesh informed him that Ram Pratap S/o Shri Laxman Mali, R/o Chandwardi has beaten the complainant's nephew Suresh whereupon, due (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (6 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] to injury on neck, he has died. FIR No.283/2006 (Ex.D-4) was registered on the information of complainant Mahendra Kumar Mali against Hajari Lal, Ganga Ram, Morpal, Ram swaroop, Panna Chand, Dhan Raj, Pappu and 8-10 other persons of Bardawada village. In this report, on 13.9.2006 at about 1.00 PM, Mahenda Kumar Mali, the complainant reported that persons against whom the report had been filed, attacked, abused and said that Ram Pratap has killed their Suresh and started beating with various weapons. It is noteworthy that persons against whom FIR No.283/2006 (Ex.D-4) was registered are mostly the persons, who are witnesses in the instant matter on behalf of prosecution. On perusal of FIRs (Ex. D-4 and Ex.D-5), it reveals that immediate after seeing the deceased killed, Ganga Ram (PW-1) accompanied by other villagers may have gone to village Chandbardi and attacked Ram Swaroop and others saying that Ram Pratap killed his son Suresh. Prosecution has failed to explain how this anomaly regarding assailant of the deceased crop up. After due investigation, what result was arrived at by police in the matters of FIRs -Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5. In absence of any explanation, story of the defence in the instant matter that appellant Manna Lal is not actual culprit and he was, in fact, at his in-laws village at the time of occurrence may have some truth. Prosecution has examined Sadhna Bhagwat (PW-13), Animeshpal (PW-14), Parmanand Meena (PW-17) and Parmanand Gurjar (PW-18) to prove the enmity due to which the appellant Manna Lal killed Suresh. But none of these witnesses said anything as such and they have turned hostile. Ganga Ram (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (7 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] (PW-1) stated in cross examination that there was a dispute with regard to land with appellant Manna Lal and for this, there was an enmity but none of the prosecution witnesses has corroborated any such fact. Thus, we find no evidence available about motive for which appellant Manna Lal would have killed Suresh. The Supreme Court in Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati's case (supra) observed that when evidence of eye witnesses have been found totally unacceptable, presence of motive and recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence at the instance of accused are wholly insufficient for sustaining charge of murder. In the instant matter, evidence of the eye witnesses have been found totally unacceptable and motive is altogether lacking. Recoveries of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence, are also not sufficient to prove the charge levelled against the appellant.
27. We find that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution incorrect and legal perspective. Factual metrix as adduced bythe prosecution has not been minutely scrutinized. Thus, the findings given by the learned trial court cannot be sustained.
28. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant Manna Lal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10.10.2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant,who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
29. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellant Manna Lal is (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (8 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court."
19. This Court, on perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench, finds that the conviction order which was passed by the trial court against the petitioner, the High Court has recorded a finding that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in correct and legal prospective and further found the fatual matrix as adduced by the prosecution, was not minutely scrutinized and as such, the findings given by the trial court were not sustainable and accordingly appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
20. This Court finds that the judgment which has been passed by the Division Bench has no where granted benefit of doubt to the petitioner and on merits of the case, the petitioner has been found not involved in the criminal case and accordingly he has been honourably acquitted.
21. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that if there is a honourable acquittal, the same would amount as if no charge is proved against any delinquent and whatever allegations are levelled against him, the same stand wiped out.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM)
(9 of 11) [CW-6710/2018]
22. This Court deems it proper to quote para 24 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police And Another Vs. S. Samuthir AM (supra), which reads as under:-
"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal,"
"acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
23. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Division Bench would not ipso facto result into reinstatement of the petitioner and only on account of setting aside the order of conviction, the petitioner cannot be said to be blameworthy, suffice it to say by this Court that the Division Bench while passing the order has not only set-aside the conviction but it (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) (10 of 11) [CW-6710/2018] has also specifically acquitted the petitioner of all the charges and the conviction order has been set-aside on merits.
24. This Court finds that the respondents, at no point of time, have initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and only account of his conviction by the trial court, his services were terminated.
25. This Court, considering this aspect of the matter, also finds that the after acquittal order was passed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents ought to have considered reinstatement of the petitioner, which they have failed to do so.
26. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the order which was passed on 05.04.2010, was only on the premise of conviction of the petitioner, at relevant time, under Section 302 IPC and the respondents had considered the conduct of the petitioner which did not require such person to be retained in service, this Court finds that if the very basis of termination of service of the petitioner, was conviction under Section 302 and if same was set-aside on merits by the High Court, the respondents would not justified in denying the petitioner his reinstatement back in service.
27. This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 05.04.2010 is required to be set-aside and accordingly the same is set-aside.
28. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
29. This Court further directs that the respondents would consider about reinstatement of the petitioner as he stands acquitted of all the charges and consequential orders may also be passed by them within a period of five weeks after receipt of copy of this order.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM)
(11 of 11) [CW-6710/2018]
30. This Court also makes it clear that the petitioner would be entitled for consequential benefits of pay and other benefits from the date of setting aside conviction order.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 104 (Downloaded on 30/11/2022 at 12:12:13 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)