Allahabad High Court
Subhash Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29538 of 2019
Petitioner :- Subhash Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Anand Singh Pawar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ramesh Singh and Shri Praful Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State and go through the record.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District-Barabanki and the appellate order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Faizabad Range Faizabad now 'Ayodhya Range Ayodhya'. The petitioner has also challenged the revisional order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Director General of Police, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been punished with minor penalty of placing him in the minimum of pay on the post of Constable for a period of one year, which orders have been upheld by the appellate and revisional authority vide impugned order(s).
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Civil Police on 10.10.1998 was posted at Siddharthnagar, Muzaffarnagar, Barabanki GRP, Barabanki since 2016. One undertrial prisoner Kuldeep Gautam S/o Rampal was taken to the Court by the petitioner on 08.03.2016 and when he was being brought back to the jail, the said under trial prisoner had escaped from the custody of the petitioner.
(4) An F.I.R. at Case Crime No.251 of 2016 under Section 223 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was also proceeded in the departmental proceedings. During the pendency of the trial in respect of the said F.I.R. under Section 223 IPC, the petitioner has been punished in the Departmental proceedings vide order dated 29.08.2016 placing him at the lowest pay of the post of Constable for a period of one year. The petitioner, however, was acquitted by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 02.05.2019.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only allegations but also the evidence in the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal trial were identical. He, therefore, submits that when the departmental inquiry and criminal inquiry were based on the same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses, the punishment order ought to have been revoked after he got clean acquittal from the trial court in respect of the charge for which he has been punished in the departmental proceedings. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat 2006 5 SCC 446.
(6) Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the scope and degree of proof in departmental proceeding and the criminal trial are different. In criminal trial, the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in department proceedings, the outcome would depend on the preponderance of probabilities. He, therefore, submits that merely as petitioner has been acquitted in criminal trial, it would not vitiate the punishment order passed against the petitioner. He further submits that in the case of G.M. Tank (Supra), punishment order of dismissal was passed in the departmental proceeding subsequently to the conclusion of the criminal trial, which is not the case in the present case.
(7) I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the punishment order dated 29.08.2016 passed in departmental proceedings is before the order of acquittal of the petitioner. Therefore, ratio of the judgment in G.M. Tank's case (Supra) may not get attracted in the present case. However, it is for the competent authority to take a view as to whether it would be justified to maintain the order of punishment when the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial in respect of the same charge, evidence and witnesses. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the authorities are set aside. The case is remanded back to the disciplinary authority- Superintendent of Police, Barabanki to reconsider the order of punishment after considering the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted for the same charge by the trial court and the case before the trial court was also based on the same evidence.
(8) Let a fresh decision be taken within a period of one month after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Order Date:-2.5.2023/Raj
