Karnataka High Court
Sri C Raghunathan vs M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Limited on 3 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.29276 OF 2014 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI C.RAGHUNATHAN
S/O SRI CHANNAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
DEPUTY MANAGER
(NOW DISMISSED FROM SERVICE)
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
BANGALORE COMPLEX
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017
AND R/AT P-12, 14TH CROSS
HAL QUARTERS, CDJ QUARTERS
MARATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 032 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SATHEESH K.N., ADV.,)
AND:
1. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
BANGALORE COMPLEX, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
FOUNDRY & FORGE DIVISION
M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
BANGALORE COMPLEX, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017
3. SRI MOHAN ABRAHAM
ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
ENQUIRY OFFICER
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
2
BANGALORE COMPLEX,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADV., FOR
M/S SUNDARASWAMY AND RAMDAS, ADVS.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.06.2006 VIDE ANNEXURE - N
ISSUED BY R-2 AND DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 4.1.2008 VIDE
ANNEXURE - T ISSUED BY R-2 AND THE APPELLATE ORDER
DATED 1.7.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE - Y ISSUED BY R-1 AS THESE
ORDERS SUFFER FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON
THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner joined the service as an Engineer in the establishment of the respondent - M/s.Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and later promoted as Deputy Manager (Shops), Foundry and Forge Division. He was granted 1½ years of study leave with pay by the management to complete his Ph.D. Course in Indian Institute of Science. He was also paid salary during the course of his studies. On 16.12.2003, a charge sheet was issued to him and he was kept under suspension. The charge sheet related to his misconduct. In the 3 charge sheet dated 23.11.2004, the charges pertain to appointment of one Shri V.Senthil Kumar and Shri Janaki Rami Reddy as Executive Trainee (Technical) in HAL, Helicopter Division, Bangalore. The charge sheet further states that the list of documents and the list of witnesses which the Articles of Charges indicated in Annexure-I are proposed to be proved as indicated in Annexures-II and III. The allegations as raised in the charge sheet would constitute misconduct and violation of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984, under which Rules 4 and 5 have been referred. The charge sheet accompanied with Annexure-I, imputation of misconduct is with regard to appointment of V.Senthil Kumar and Janaki Rami Reddy; the petitioner in connivance with M Masilamani, the then Chief Manager (P&A), Helicopter Division, collected the Offers of Appointment letters of above said V.Senthil Kumar and Janaki Rami Reddy, for the post of Executive Trainee and they demanded bribe from these two candidates. Said V.Senthil Kumar made a complaint to 4 the C.B.I. and on receipt of his complaint, the petitioner was caught red-handed on 13.12.2003 by the C.B.I. Anti Corruption Bureau officials while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is the imputation of his misconduct that one M.Masilamani, who handed over the Offers of Appointment letters of the two selected candidates to Raghunathan and Raghunathan in turn demanded bribe from the complainant. The criminal case of V.Senthil Kumar was registered in No.RC.29(A)/2003-BLR; after verifying the genuineness of the complaint, it was decided to trap Raghunathan and accordingly, trap was laid and he was caught red- handed. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 13.8.2004 for the offences under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections, 7, 8, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. With regard to the charge sheet, the petitioner made a reply on 30th December 2004. He had also approached this Court in W.P.No.21738/2005 (S-DIS) and made a prayer to quash the enquiry proceedings dated 30.4.2005. The 5 said petition came to be disposed of on 7.10.2005, in which a direction was issued to the Enquiry officer to re-examine the request made by the petitioner for availing the services of an Advocate to defend him in the enquiry. The respondent - Company also issued one more charge sheet dated 21st June 2006, which is similar to the charge sheet dated 23.11.2004 as per Annexure-C. List of documents and list of witnesses as per Annexures-II and III to the charge sheet in which the respondent proposed to examine about five witnesses and documents sought to be used in the enquiry of about nine documents. He also preferred Writ Petition No.7959/2006 to avail the services of the Advocate, which was dismissed on 30th June 2009 with an observation that the aggrieved party should wait till the disciplinary proceedings are completed and challenge the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate forum. He has also approached this Court in W.P.No.9239/2006 praying to quash the charge sheet issued against him under 6 proceedings dated 21.6.2006. The said petition was dismissed. He instituted one more Writ Petition No.2328/2007. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner was concluded with an observation that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved and on the basis of the same, he was issued show cause notice. He was issued with second show cause notice, for which he has replied. On considering his reply, an order has been passed on 4th January 2008 dismissing the petitioner from service against which he has preferred an appeal on 14.1.2008. The said appeal was not disposed of according to the petitioner. Again he made one more appeal on 28.2.2014 in which he has stated that ".......... My appeal to the authorities were also put to cold storage without even giving me a reply". Thereafter, this petition has been filed challenging the order of his dismissal from service on the ground firstly that though there was an order by this Court to provide him assistance of an Advocate, since the Presenting Officer is not a legally trained officer, such request was 7 rejected by the respondent - Company. Accordingly, he has been deprived of providing an opportunity to get the assistance of an Advocate. Secondly, the petitioner was placed exparte since he was not given assistance. Though the charge sheet has been issued along with lists of documents and witnesses, the documents referred therein were not supplied to the petitioner. He made a request to the respondent for supply of the said documents and the same was endorsed by stating that at the appropriate stage, he will be permitted to look into the documents. With regard to the list of witnesses as per Annexure-III to the charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer stated in the charge sheet dated 21st June 2006 that the list of witnesses by which Article of Charges are proposed to be proved are indicated in order to prove the charge as stated therein that the respondent would examine five witnesses. However, during the enquiry, they have not examined any witnesses except witness No.5, who is not the witness, actually he was an Investigating Officer in a criminal case, which was 8 pending before the Sessions Court and the Investigating Officer, who has deposed as PW-1, has not deposed anything except handing over the document, which was in his custody as an Investigating Officer. It is stated that the respondents have not proved the charges levelled against the petitioner since they have not examined any of the witnesses either the complainant or any person, who are party to the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it is to be taken as if there is no evidence and the Enquiry Officer committed a grave error in giving a finding that the charges have been proved and he has emphasized on the basis of the evidence of PW-1, who is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed only to the extent that he had investigated the matter as a party to the trap made and has made a mahazar and he has handed over the documents. This is not at all incriminating evidence. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent has failed to prove the charges. However, the finding that charges 9 are proved is an arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is clear from the enquiry report that at the conclusion, the Enquiry Officer is dependant for everything on the evidence of PW-1. Though PW-1 has not deposed anything, but the report reveals as if he had adduced material evidence. The Enquiry Officer has failed in evaluating the evidence and also documents and he has reached conclusion in the form of answering each issue. Under these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer has committed an error, which is arbitrary in nature in not holding the enquiry in a fair and proper manner and the report is without any cogent evidence. On these grounds, the punishment vitiates.
3. In view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, a domestic enquiry has been held, which is made on the basis of the complaint made by V.Senthil Kumar to the C.B.I. After investigation, the C.B.I. filed charge sheet on the basis of the complaint and domestic 10 enquiry has been initiated. Charges in the domestic enquiry and the charges in the criminal case are one and the same; the list of documents and the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer and before the Sessions Court are one and the same. Under these circumstances, a request was made to withhold domestic enquiry till the completion of the criminal case, but said request has been rejected. Instead of waiting till the trial is completed by the C.B.I. Court, domestic enquiry was completed and report was submitted hurriedly resulting in dismissing the petitioner from service, which is arbitrary in nature. The Enquiry Officer is duty bound to give answers to each and every aspects of the stand taken by the prosecution. But strangely that has not been done. He has preferred two appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority failed to evaluate the case of the petitioner. The criminal case is ended in acquittal, which is a contested matter. Under these circumstances, the pronouncement made by the 11 criminal court should have been prevailed against the domestic enquiry. On this count, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits to set aside the order of dismissal and direct the respondent to re-instate the petitioner into service.
4. In support of his case, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:
1. (1999) 3 SCC 679 - Capt. M.Paul Anthony -vs- Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another;
2. 2006 AIR SCW 2709 - G.M.Tank -vs- State of Gujarat and Another;
3. 2015 AIR SCW 483 - Joginder Singh -vs- Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others.
The above judgments are relied by the petitioner to support his case that acquittal in criminal case should automatically be taken for the purpose of exonerating the delinquent. In support of his submission that in the absence of evidence, the domestic enquiry vitiates and punishment is to be set aside, he relied on the following judgments:
12
1. (2009) 12 SCC 78 - Union of India and Others -vs-
Gyan Chand Chattar;
2. 1963(8) Laws 10 (SC) - Union of India -vs- H.C.Goel;
3. 1995 Lab I.C. 1496 - Chandrakumar Madhukar Deshmukh and etc. -vs- The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay and others .
In support of his submission that opportunity to engage a legal practitioner and denial of the same is violation of principles of natural justice, he has relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 2178 in the matter of C.L.Subramaniam -vs- The Collector of Customs, Cochin.
5. The respondent - Company files statement of objections. It is its case that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but only against the decision making process. This Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is also not open to the High Court to re-appreciate or re- appraise or re-assess the evidence before the Tribunal and examine the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as if it were a regular first appeal. It is further 13 stated that it is for the employer or the management to hold domestic enquiry for the purpose of assessing the credibility of the petitioner and on assessing the same, they instituted a domestic enquiry and based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Hence, the respondent substantiates his submission that dismissal order is valid and it cannot be interfered with by this Court.
6. The respondent has also taken a ground that the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of about four years after the Disciplinary Authority passed order without explaining the long delay. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and it is to be dismissed in limine.
7. It is the further submission of the respondent that with a view to obtain illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means, in connivance with one M.Masilamani, the then Chief Manager (P&A), Helicopter Division, the 14 petitioner received the original offers of Appointment letters pertaining to Sri.Senthil Kumar and Sri.Janaki Rami Reddy for the post of Executive Trainee and with an ulterior motive of demanding bribe, they have demanded Rs.80,000/- out of which the complainant was stated to have paid Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner herein. Since the complainant was not ready to pay said amount, he made a complaint to the C.B.I. Accordingly, trap was successfully made. He has been prosecuted by the Criminal Court and also on the basis of the same, domestic enquiry was instituted. Acquittal order from the court is not a ground to set aside the domestic enquiry. Benefit of doubt or the honourable acquittal, altogether are different parameters and in the domestic enquiry, it is only preponderance of probabilities that too on the basis of available material and evidence. The case of the petitioner has been examined and he has been rightly dismissed from service.
15
8. While justifying the case of the respondent, learned Counsel relies on a judgment reported in (1999) II LLJ 682 SC - Bank of India -vs- Degala Suryanarayana and this case has been referred with regard to strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. To emphasize the same, he has also relied on a judgment reported in (1997) II LLJ 26 SC = 1997(4) SCC 565 - Tara Chand Vyas -vs- Chairman & Disciplinary Authority and Others; AIR 1977 SC 1512 - State of Haryana and Ors. -vs- Rattan Singh and AIR 1982 SC 673 - J.D.Jain -vs- Management of SBI and Others. With regard to the contention of delay in approaching this Court and in support of his case that the petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, he relied on the following judgments:
1. (2013) 10 SCC 627 - Londhe Prakash Bhagwan -vs-
Dattatreya Eknath Mane and Others;
2. AIR 2001 SC 69 - The Management of Iron and Steel Ltd. -vs- Prahlad;
3. AIR 1993 SC 2276 - Ratan Chandra Sammantha -vs- Union of India & 16
4. (2002) II LLJ 297 Kar - North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation -vs- Abdul Salam and submitted that there is a delay of more than four years in approaching the court and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, delay in approaching the court disentitles the petitioner to get relief.
9. In support of his contention that in case of involvement in misappropriation, there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal from service, learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1249 in the matter of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh -vs- Krishnan Behari and Others. He has taken another ground that the Criminal Court has given benefit of doubt to the delinquent, will not in any way render completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of finding of guilt or consequential punishment, for which he has referred to following judgments:
1. AIR 2011 SC 1931 - State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
-vs- Nemi Chand Nalwaya;17
2. AIR 2013 SC 14 - Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another -vs- S.Samuthiram.
3. AIR 2014 SC 405 - State of West Bengal and Others -
vs- Sankar Ghosh.
4. (2016) 1 SCC 671 - Baljinder Pal Kaur -vs- State of Punjab and others.
10. It is further submitted that there were four charges framed against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry by the respondent. First one is dated 23.11.2004 - Annexure-C, second charge sheet is dated 25.2.2006 - Annexure-R3, third charge sheet is dated 21.6.2006 - Annexure-G and fourth charge sheet is dated 21.6.2006 ended in dismissal from service. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted only in respect of charge sheet dated 21.6.2006 and other charges are abandoned. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that though four charge sheets were issued, since the charges dated 21.6.2006 are proved, the other charges are found unnecessary. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service. It is not necessary to continue with the other proceedings. 18
11. The complainant V.Senthil Kumar, who was appointed as an Executive Trainee, made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Bangalore, dated 13.12.2003. The case was registered in Spl.C.C.No.183/2004 on the file of the XXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, (CCH-34), for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The complainant stated that in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondent - establishment, he had applied for the post of Executive Trainee and appeared for written examination for said post on 26.10.2003 at HAL Complex and he was declared as "Passed" on the same day. He had also appeared for the interview on 29.10.2003 in the same office. During the last week of November 2003, his mother had received a telephone call from one Parameswaran, who had demanded a bribe of Rs.4,00,000/- to arrange for his appointment to the above mentioned post. Said Parameswaran also 19 contacted him and demanded a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- for arranging the above said post. He stated that he is an officer in BEL and has got contacts with top officials in HAL. On 3.12.2003, the said Parameswaran called him over telephone and demanded a bribe of Rs.80,000/- of which Rs.25,000/- was to be paid latest by 13.12.2003 and the balance could be paid in a month for arranging the said post to him. On 11.12.2003, complainant had contacted said Parameswaran over his mobile phone and Parameswaran asked him whether he has arranged the amount, for which he replied that he is still arranging the amount. It is stated that since it was the last day to pay the amount, he will lose the chance of appointment. However, the complainant could not encourage the things like this, accordingly, he lodged a complaint to the CBI. This is the basis for issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner. He was issued a charge sheet on 21.6.2006. For the purpose of convenience, the charges are extracted as below:
20
"Certain serious acts of Commission and Omission as detailed in the articles of Charges/Imputations of Misconducts enclosed as Annexure-I have been reported against you in connection with the appointment of Shri. Vemula Madhukar as Executive Trainee (Technical) in HAL, Helicopter Division, Bangalore. The list of documents and the list of witnesses by which the Articles of Charges indicated in Annexure-I are proposed to be proved are indicated in ANNEXURE-II & III.
2. The said acts of Commission and Omission, if proved, would constitute misconduct and violation of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 applicable to you as detailed below:-
Rule 4:
(i) Every Officer of the company shall at all times-
(a) Maintain absolute integrity
(b) Maintain devotion to duty and
(c) Do nothing which is unbecoming of an officer of the Company or any act which may bring disrepute to the Company Rule 5 :
(iii) "...........Dishonesty in connection with the business ....... of the Company..........."
(xiv) "Accepting ......... any illegal gratification or indulging in any corrupt practice."
(xvi) "Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company."
(xx) "Commission of any act which amounts to a criminal offence involving moral turpitude." (xxii) "Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behavious"
(xxv) 'Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct."
(xxxi) Spreading false rumours or giving false information which may bring disrepute to the Company."
21
3. You are hereby called upon to submit your explanation in writing and show cause as to why Disciplinary Action should not be taken against you on the charges indicated above. Your explanation should reach the undersigned within SEVEN days from the date of receipt of this Charge sheet, failing which further action as deemed fit under the rules of the Company will be taken up against you. The charge sheet was accompanied by Annexure-I - Articles of Charges/Imputations of Misconduct and Annexure-II is the list of documents in which they have referred six documents to prove the case of the prosecution. Annexure-III contains the list of witnesses. It contains six witnesses. In the charge sheet, it is stated that, ". . . The list of documents and the list of witnesses by which the Articles of Charges indicated in Annexure-I are proposed to be proved are indicated in Annexures-II and III." This clarifies that the prosecution wants to rely on the documents referred in Annexure-II, which is totally six documents and to examine six witnesses in support of their case. During the enquiry, he made a request to the respondent for permission to appoint a legally trained officer since the Presenting 22 Officer was not legally trained, the same was rejected by the Enquiry officer. Hence, he approached this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Enquiry Officer to re-look into it and provide him permission to engage the services of an Advocate. Thereafter, on several occasions, he made a request for postponement of the enquiry. His request for postponing the enquiry is for the reason that the criminal case was instituted against the petitioner. However it was proceeded by recording the evidence on behalf of the respondent. On behalf of the respondent, instead of examining the list of witnesses furnished along with the charge sheet, the Presenting Officer examined only witness No.6, who is the Investigating Officer in the criminal case. He has been examined as PW-1 on 23.6.2007. He has deposed only about five lines in his evidence that is recorded by the Enquiry Officer. His evidence is that, "My name is M.Raja working as Inspector of Police in CBI Anti Corruption Branch Bangalore since July 2003 onwards. The present case RC 29 (A)/2003 has been 23 entrusted to me for investigation by the SP ACB CBI Bangalore. I have investigated the case and I have submitted the report. Now I am producing my statement duly signed by me today before the committee along with relevant records pertaining to the case.
I conclude my statement and I offer myself for cross examination."
This is all the evidence on behalf of PW-1, who is the Investigating Officer. After the completion of his evidence, he has handed over the investigating papers, which were in his possession, to the Enquiry Officer. This evidence of PW-1 is in no way helpful to the Enquiry Officer or to the prosecution. What he has deposed before the Enquiry Officer is that he is an Investigating Officer in the said case and that he is producing the statement duly signed by him today before the Committee along with relevant records pertaining to the case. In the charge sheet, the prosecution has stated that the charges made against the petitioner are proposed to be proved by examining the list of witnesses. When that is the case, the prosecution should have examined the witnesses listed 24 in Annexure-III. On the other hand, instead of examining any of the persons, the person in Sl.No.6 is examined as PW-1, who is not the witness, for having filed criminal case against him. This is to be taken for the purpose that there was absolutely no evidence on behalf of the respondent. In the cases of this nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2009) 12 SCC 78 - Union of India and Others -vs- Gyan Chand Chattar has held at para Nos.20, 21, 22, 30 and 31 as under:
"20. So far as Charge 6 i.e. asking for 1% commission for making the payment of pay allowances is concerned, the learned Single Judge has appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses examined in this regard and came to the conclusion that not a single person had deposed before the enquiry officer that the respondent employee had asked any person to pay 1% commission for making payment of their allowances. It was base on hearsay statements. All the witnesses stated that this could be the motive/reason for not making the payment.
21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.25
22. Witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer that they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of them was able to point out who was that person who had been asked to pay 1% commission. One of such witnesses deposed that some unknown person had told him. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in this regard was based on "hearsay statement of some unknown persons whom they did not know". This was certainly not legal evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee.
............
30. Charge 6 was basically based on hearsay statement and it is difficult to assume as to whether enquiry could be held on such a vague charge. Charge 6 does not reveal as to who was the person who had been asked by the respondent to pay 1% commission for payment of pay allowances. It is an admitted position that if a charge of corruption is proved, no punishment other that dismissal can be awarded.
31. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari (1996) 2 SCC 714 : 1996 SCC (L & S) 539 : AIR 1996 SC 1249 this Court held as under : (SCC p.715, para 4)
"4. .... In a case of such nature-
indeed, in cases involving corruption-there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant."
Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornby (1) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam (1976) 3 SCC 71: 1976 SCC (L & S) 381 : AIR 1975 SC 26 2025, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 370 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 155, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd. v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha (2000) 7 SCC 517: 2000 SCC (L & S) 962, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L & S) 469 : AIR 2001 SC 930, Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma (2002) 10 SCC 330 : 2003 SCC (L & S) 714, NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh (2006) 6 SCC 187 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 1290 : AIR 2006 SC 2730, and U.P.SRTC v. Vinod Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 115 : (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 1, wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service. Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences.
In another judgment reported in 1963(8) Laws 10 (SC)
- Union of India -vs- H.C.Goel has held as under:
"20. This conclusion does not finally dispose of the appeal. It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311(2), the High Court under Art.226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a 27 Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi- judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. In fact, in fairness to the learned Attorney-General, we ought to add that he did not seriously dispute this position in law."
12. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that, the charges in the domestic enquiry and the criminal case are one and the same. For that purpose, he has referred the charge sheet in criminal case in Special C.C.No.183/2004. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 and 3 along with deceased accused No.2 during March, 2003 in Bangalore, agreed to enter into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of such 28 conspiracy, accused No.2 demanded from V.Senthil Kumar a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and later reduced it to Rs.80,000/- of which Rs.25,000/- was to be paid in advance by 13.12.2003 as illegal gratification as a motive or reward through deceased accused No.2 for handing over the letter of offer of Appointment of Mr.V.Senthil Kumar as an Executive Trainee. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined as many as 16 witnesses, of which PW-16, who is PW-1 in the departmental enquiry. The documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. List of material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the defence are Exs.D1 to D4. In the domestic enquiry, the charge sheet dated 21st June 2006 reads that:
"That Shri C.Raghunathan, while functioning as a Public Servant in the capacity of Deputy Manager (Shops), Foundary & Forge Division, M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore in connivance with Shri. M.Masilamani, the then Chief Manager (P & A), Helicopter Division, with a view to derive pecuniary advantage for himself, by corrupt or illegal means, or otherwise by abusing his position as a Public Servant, had demanded through Shri.M.P.Shivashankar (an accomplice of his) from Shri.Vemula Madhukar, S/o V.Sambaiah, 29 Door No.2-2-81, Budidhagadda Basti, Kothagudam, Khammam Dist., Andhra Pradesh, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward, for arranging appointment, of Shri Vemula Madhukar as Executive Trainee (Technical), in the Electrical and Electronics Discipline in HAL, Helicopter Division, Bangalore. In pursuance of this, Shri.C.Raghunathan, on 17-11-2003, had demanded and accepted Rs.40,000/- as advance payment of the illegal gratification demanded, and had thereby obtained pecuniary advantage for himself, and had thus committed grave misconduct in violation of HAL CDA Rules, 1984."
The imputation further reveals the fact that the trap was laid on the basis of the complaint made by V.Senthil Kumar and it was successfully held on 13.12.2003. For the said purpose, the prosecution wanted to prove their case by examining Sri.M.S.Anil Kumar, Senior Manager, Sri.M.Rajagopala Reddy, Manager, Sri.B.R.Babu, Job Contractor, Sri.R.Mohan, Senior Assistant Supervisor, Sri.Vemula Madhukar and lastly the representative from CBI. This is the charge in domestic enquiry and the charge made against the petitioner in the criminal case on the basis of complaint 30 by V.Senthil Kumar is exactly one and the same. In fact, for issuance of charge sheet in domestic enquiry, it is the complaint made by V.Senthil Kumar firstly to the CBI. The same has been taken and charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 21st June 2006. As per the charge sheet, the acts of commission and omission of the petitioner would constitute misconduct as per Rule 4 and 5 of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984.
13. When these two set of charges framed in the domestic enquiry and the criminal case are one and the same, then the question would be whether the departmental enquiry or domestic enquiry could stall its proceedings till the completion of the criminal case or not. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the result of criminal case has nothing to do with the domestic enquiry and the result of domestic enquiry depends on preponderance of probabilities and the result of the criminal case depends on the findings of the court. For the said reason, learned Counsel for 31 the respondent specifically stated that it is impermissible under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India for judicial review and it is not against the decision but only against the decision making process. In this regard, it is true that the departmental or domestic enquiry is held on the basis of the list of documents, which would prevail upon. But the fact remains that when the charges before the Enquiry Officer and the Criminal Court are one and the same and it is contested by the prosecution that too, by the C.B.I. and the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner for the charges levelled against him, by its order dated 31st July 2007, the question would be whether the acquittal order passed by the Criminal Court should prevail over the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry. In this regard, a judgment was relied by the respondent reported in AIR 1996 SC 1249 referred to supra and submitted that in case of corruption, there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. He also referred to a judgment reported in 32 AIR 2011 SC 1931 referred to supra and drew my attention to paragraphs-7, 8, 9 and 10 and submitted that acquittal in a criminal case will not in any way render completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect validity of finding of guilt and consequential punishment.
14. The judgments referred by the learned Counsel for the respondents have been examined. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999(3) SCC 679 (supra) at paragraphs-13, 22 and 34 held as under:
"13. ............As we understand, the basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigate, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and 33 the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance.
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 simultaneously, those 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, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
34. ............ As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of 34 incriminating articles therefrom". 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 situation, 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."
In another judgment reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2709 (supra), it has been held as under:
"31. ............... The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr.V.B.Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were 35 established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved that guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.
32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
In (2013) 7 SCC 685 - Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another -vs- Mehar Singh, it has been held that if appointment has been denied to a person on the ground of his involvement in criminal case, notwithstanding acquittal, the Supreme Court held that 36 even if departmental enquiry is completed and he is completely exonerated, it cannot be stated that he should be reinstated into service.
15. In other judgments, it is held that where it is hotly contested by the C.B.I., when the Court has made a judicial pronouncement acquitting the petitioner on the same charges, which was charged in the domestic enquiry, then it is the judicial pronouncement which should prevail and not the domestic enquiry.
16. In the light of the above, I hold that the finding of the Enquiry Officer vitiates resulting in dismissal order.
17. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer, who is in a responsible position, should not act in a biased manner and should apply his mind to record the findings. He should ascertain himself whether he can give finding based on his best knowledge and without any proper enquiry, the 37 enquiry report has been issued. In the entire enquiry report, he has stated only in respect of number of times the petitioner sought adjournments and the order sheets. Lastly he reached to the conclusion and for the said purpose, he has relied on the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 is not at all a witness to the incident and his evidence cannot be considered as the evidence for the purpose of conviction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no evidence for the prosecution to prove their case. In the absence of any evidence, since the prosecution has not examined any witnesses referred in Annexure-III and examined only the Investigating Officer, who appeared before the Enquiry Officer not to lead any evidence, but he appeared only to handover the investigation papers, which were in his possession. In the absence of any primary evidence, a person who is familiar to the facts of the case, should appear and adduce evidence. In this regard, PW-1, who is not connected with the respondent - Company and is an outsider, is an Investigating Officer and he has been 38 examined by the Sessions Court and it has been held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case.
18. The finding given by the Sessions Court is relevant to refer here. At para No.64, it is held that "........Therefore, when he has already joined HAL, lodging of complaint and the question of the accused persons demanding bribe amount for doing any official favour does not arise at all." In para-65, it is held that ".........As already extracted the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and PW.13 i.e., Trap laying Officer is inconsistent in material particulars. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the successful trap." In para-66, it is also stated that, ".........the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show prior agreement between the Accused No.1 to 3 to demand and accept the bribe amount from the complainant P.W.3. Therefore, the evidence of acceptance of bribe amount by Accused No.1 is not of any consequence." In para No.69, it is observed that ".........it is also pertinent to notice that the Recovery Mahazar was drawn in the office of the CBI. The 39 Recovery Mahazar was not drawn at the spot where Accused No.1 was allegedly trapped. Therefore, this aspect also casts a doubt about the recovery of bribe money from Accused No.1. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution has failed to prove the case levelled against Accused No.1 and 3.."
19. When this is the finding by the Criminal Court, when such examination was not available to the prosecution, the Enquiry Officer should have insisted the Presenting Officer to examine the witnesses listed in Annexure, but without doing so, he has elaborately and sufficiently re-produced the order sheet and finally gave a conclusion in a mechanical manner. He has failed to evaluate the documents and based on the documents produced by either of the parties after providing an opportunity, he should have given a finding to each of the charges, but no such work has been done by him.
20. The acquittal of the petitioner is whether it is benefit of doubt or honourable acquittal? It is referred in the following judgments of the Supreme Court: 40
1. (2015) 2 SCC 377 - Joginder Singh -vs- Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others;
2. AIR 2014 SC 405 - State of West Bengal and others - vs- Sankar Ghosh;
3. (2013) 7 SCC 685 - Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another -vs- Mehar Singh;
wherein the Supreme Court has held that 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. The question would be 'what is honourable?'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 14 - Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another -vs- S.Samuthiram held as under:
"20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility 41 of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (husband - complainant) is found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.
21. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 : (AIR 1994 SC 552 :
1993 AIR SCW 4044). 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, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable 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 42 against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
22. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, it was held even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari reported in 1972 SLR 45, this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 :
(AIR 1933 Cal 800) which is as follows:
"The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term 'honourably acquitted'".
23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled 43 law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."
21. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of detailed examination made by the Sessions Court by examining each and every aspect of the prosecution and acquitted the petitioner and the conclusion that prosecution utterly failed to prove the case, further in support of their case, prosecution has not examined any witnesses much less any material witnesses. In view of the honourable acquittal, the petitioner is acquitted of offence as figured in the charge sheet filed by the CBI and also similar charge sheet issued by the Department for holding an 44 enquiry on 21.6.2006. The complaint is one and the same; the charges are one and the same and the allegations made against the petitioner are one and the same. So also the imputations and all investigating process, then the judicial pronouncement has to prevail and not the departmental proceedings.
22. In a service matter, dismissal from service is something like a capital punishment. While dismissing a person, one should keep in mind whether that person a duty bound person. In the said backdrop, it is the dependants / family members will be deprived of their right to live. It essentially includes the petitioner and his family members and the school going children will have to be dropped out of the schools; aged parents will have to be deprived of support. When such person is dismissed from service, it is the employer or the Disciplinary Authority, who must take all possible steps in proving their case and it shall not be made in a casual manner as done in the present case. When the charge sheet reveals that they prove their case by 45 examining the number of witnesses, but not examining most of them, it shows that the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer have acted in a casual manner and played on the livelihood of the petitioner.
23. Another ground taken by the respondent is that the petitioner has approached this Court with delay and laches. With regard to the same, the petitioner has stated that he had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Annexure-V dated 14.1.2008. This was not disposed of and nothing was communicated to him. Then he made one more representation/appeal to the Appellate Authority as at Annexure-X dated 28.2.2014 in which he stated that "........My appeal to the authorities were also put to cold storage without even giving me a reply." Thereafter, it seems he is given an endorsement by the Appellate Authority. When this is the pleading available in the petition, though the respondent has stated that the petitioner had approached the Court with four years of delay, but they have not stated whether disposal of the 46 appeal was communicated to the petitioner within time or not. It is presumed that to the appeal filed by the petitioner, the respondent has not filed any reply within time and it was replied only after the second appeal was preferred and thereafter within a reasonable time, petitioner has approached this Court. Secondly, when a person has been dismissed from service, his entire family will be thrown to the street and are deprived of their right to live. When such being the case, though there were witnesses, without examining them and standing only on a technicality ground of delay, the petitioner has been denied the relief. The delay is not a matter, what matters is whether the petitioner has been dismissed after holding a detailed enquiry by following principles of natural justice. Hence, I hold that the Enquiry officer has utterly failed in making a proper enquiry and erroneously held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The evidence of PW-1 in five to six lines is extracted as above. However, the Enquiry Officer has given a very 47 elaborated version of the evidence of PW-1, which itself is not available in the order sheet and consequently came to a conclusion in a mechanical manner. It is appropriate here to extract the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer:
"1. Out of 13 sitting conducted 12 sitting were adjourned due to various reasons, but most of the time CSO requested for adjournment.
2. CSO never produced the Court Order against his writ petition No.2328 of 2007.
3. In the beginning CSO was quoting legal matters and later on switched over to health reasons and finally His PHD Thesis submission as the reasons for adjournment.
4. If he was confident enough about defending his case, he was provided enough opportunities during the DEC. But he never attempted to make use of the opportunities. On the other hand he wanted to avoid the DEC.
5. Whether it is DEC, lower court, High Court or Supreme Court, CSO is supposed to put forth the actual facts to defend his case. Hence it is not justifiable to say that there is writ petition pending in the court.
6. Moreover whether the writ was allowed or not was not properly brought out by CSO in spite of ample time and opportunity provided to CSO.48
7. CSO never attempted to defend the charges against him. CSO did not want to cross examine the prosecution witness. Unless CSO refutes or disagree with the evidences and documents these evidences and documents are accepted as correct.
8. They are not hearsay evidences or documents. The committee accepts these documents and evidences produced by PW1 and treat them as valid.
9. The examination of the evidences during the proceedings adequately proves and convinces the committee that the charges levelled against CSO is true.
Hence the committee concludes that CSO is GUILTY OF THE ALL THE CHARGES AS MENTION IN THE CHARGE SHEET."
This shows that the Enquiry Officer has acted in a mechanical way. He has not applied his mind and he has not acted judicially as an Enquiry Officer.
24. Under these circumstances, I hold that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to law. Accordingly, I hold that the entire enquiry proceedings have to be set aside for the reason that the domestic enquiry and the criminal proceedings are one and the same; charges are one and the same; a criminal 49 case that is hotly contested by the CBI resulting in acquittal and the acquittal order by the CBI Court is prevailed over. Accordingly, I hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable and consequently, the dismissal order has to be set aside. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, the petitioner has to be reinstated into service.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-