Allahabad High Court
Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76417
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9965 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following prayer:-
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide his deducted amount / arrears for the period of 2010 to 2013 in favour of the petitioner as early as possible, in the interest of justice.
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 to decide the representation dated 16.09.2024as contained in Annexure No. 4 as early as possible within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.
iii, Issue any other writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
3. It has been submitted that during his service sometime in 2009, an application was made by his wife stating that the petitioner has married again during life of his first wife which is a misconduct. Inquiry was conducted and petitioner was given a show cause notice on 23.12.2009. The petitioner duly replied to the said show cause notice on 08.01.2010 and finding his reply to be evasive, the same was rejected and by means of order dated 18.01.2010 the petitioner was punished by reverting him to the lowest of pay scale for 3 years.
4. The petitioner never challenged the order dated 18.01.2010 and has subsequent superannuated from service on 28.02.2018 from the post of Head Constable. He has further submitted that with regard to the allegations of bigamy a first information report was lodged by his wife being Case Crime No. 4339 of 2009 under Section 494, 498-A I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Sultanpur. In the said case, the charges were framed and the petitioner was tried but during trial the existence of second marriage could not be established and accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted by means of judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur.
5. Merely on the strength of the acquittal order, the petitioner submits that he would now be entitled to the entire deductions made in pursuance of the punishment order dated 18.01.2010 and accordingly a prayer has been made in the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears for the period 2010 to 2013 for the deduction made from his salary in pursuance of punishment order.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the order of punishment dated 18.01.2010 was never assailed by the petitioner before any forum and has consequently attained finality. He further submits that the deductions, if any, made only as per the punishment order dated 18.01.2010 and during subsistence of the punishment order the prayer as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. He submits that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case would have no consequence of the punishment order passed in a disciplinary proceedings.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. The facts of the present case are not disputed inasmuch as on a complaint made by the wife of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him for misconduct of bigamy as well as first information report was lodged in Case Crime No. 4339 of 2009 under Section 494, 498-A I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Sultanpur, the disciplinary proceedings concluded by passing of the punishment order dated 18.01.2010 wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner of bigamy stood proved and he was reverted for the three years to the lowest of the pay scale.
9. The petitioner served in the department 8 years after the order of punishment and superannuated on 28.02.2018 from the post of Head Constable. During his service period, he never challenged the order of punishment dated 18.01.2018 before any authority or forum and accordingly, the said order became final.
10. On the other hand in the criminal proceedings, the charges levelled against the petitioner could not be proved and therefore he was acquitted by the trial court by means of judgment and order dated 02.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur. It is on the order of acquittal that he has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction that deductions made in pursuance of punishment order dated 18.01.2010 may be restored.
9. Needless to say that the validity of the punishment order dated 18.01.2010 remain unquestioned and accordingly had attained finality. The said order was legal and valid and in case the petitioner had any grievance against the order of punishment, it was open for him to challenge the same in an appeal or before this Court in a writ petition but the petitioner never challenged the same. The deductions made in pursuance of valid order of punishment cannot be set aside merely because of the fortuitous circumstance that on similar allegations, the petitioner has been acquitted on criminal charges.
10. Both the proceedings, namely, disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are distinct and separate and they do not bar each other. In case the petitioner was punished in departmental proceedings, it would have no bearing upon the criminal trial even if allegations are same and vis-a-vis in case the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case would not have any bearing on a disciplinary proceedings and each proceeding proceeds on the evidences and materials adduced before the authorities in the said proceedings.
11. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that mere acquittal in the criminal case will not diminish, reduce and extinguish the punishment granted in a disciplinary proceedings and accordingly no benefit of the acquittal order can be given to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings specially after they have been concluded with award of punishment.
12. In light of the above, this Court does not find any merits in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 19.11.2024
Ravi/
