Allahabad High Court
Suryabhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 July, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122387
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10424 of 2025
Petitioner :- Suryabhan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai,Haseen Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hridaya Narayan Mishra
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Sahyogi/Chaukidar at District Office- Allahabad of U.P. Co-operative Foundation Limited on Ad-hoc and temporary basis by an order dated 17.04.1984 and he joined on the said post on 04.05.1984.
3. It is not on record whether the petitioner thereafter attained status of a permanent employee or not. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 18.05.1993 that he was found involved in a theft and black marketing of foodgrains stored at godown. Earlier an FIR was also lodged on 23.04.1993 against petitioner and one another employee on same allegations.
4. The departmental proceedings were progressed and a charge-sheet dated 22.01.1994 was served upon the petitioner on two charges. Petitioner has submitted a reply to it and Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 12.03.1996 and charges levelled were found proved that petitioner has committed theft by preparing duplicate key and stolen foodgrains from the godowns.
5. On basis of the inquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 13.11.1998 was issued by Disciplinary Authority and punishment on dismissal from service and recovery of Rs.85,000/- was proposed. The petitioner thereafter submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 07.12.1998 and after considering the reply and inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 03.03.2000 passed penalty of dismissal from service as well as order of recovery of said amount.
6. The petitioner has admittedly not challenged the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2000. Subsequently, criminal trial remained pending and recently by an order dated 20.09.2024 i.e. after about 2 and a half decade, learned Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj granted acquittal to the petitioner since prosecution was failed to produce any witnesses in support of the charges and thus prosecution was failed to prove the charges against petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
7. On basis of above referred subsequent events i.e. order of acquittal, petitioner has approached the concerned respondent that he may be reinstated and order of punishment and recovery be set aside.The aforesaid application remained unattended, therefore, petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.1765 of 2025, however, it was dismissed by following order dated 13.02.2025 :-
"Shri Haseen Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State are present.
Shri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2000. He claims retiral benefits. He is not entitled to retiral benefits since he is a terminated employee.
The acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is of no avail since the order of termination against him still stands.
The writ petition is dismissed. "
8. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has now approached this Court to challenge the order of punishment dated 03.03.2000 though in above referred order dated 13.02.2025, no such liberty was granted.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to subsequent event of a clear acquittal, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and consequential punishment order be considered as void ab initio and in support of his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890 and for reference its paragraph No. 47 is reproduced hereinafter :-
"47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175."
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that disciplinary proceedings were conducted on basis of charge-sheet, petitioner's reply, Injury Report, show-cause notice as well as its reply, therefore, it was an independent proceedings and its effect would not come to end on basis of a subsequent order of acquittal which was passed on technical ground since prosecution was failed to produce any witness probably on ground that it remained pending for more than 30 years.
11. Learned counsel for respondent has also refers the above paragraph of Maharana Pratap Singh (supra) that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service passed in a disciplinary proceedings.
12. I have considered above submissions and perused the record. From perusal of records available in this writ petiton, it cannot be much disputed that the disciplinary proceedings were undertaken against petitioner following due procedure and after considering the submission of petitioner, an order of punishment was passed, though it may be a case that in trial, similar allegations were made but nature of acquittal in present case cannot be said to be a clean acquittal or honourable acquittal since prosecution was failed to produce any witness.
13. The manner to prove a charge in a criminal trial is to prove beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental inquiry, it is on basis of preponderous of probabilities.
14. In Maharana Pratap Singh (supra), Supreme Court has considered that disciplinary proceedings were defective whereas no such argument is raised in present case that disciplinary proceedings were defective in any manner. There is no allegation that principle of nature justice was not followed or it was a case of no evidence, therefore, the facts of present case are also distinguishable.
15. The petitioner was terminated from service after providing him a fair opportunity to participate, therefore, it is not a case where petitioner be granted benefit of acquittal in criminal case, therefore, relief sought to quash the punishment order cannot be granted.
16. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2025
P. Pandey
