Suraj Bhan vs Food Corporation Of India
1992 Latest Caselaw 159 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager(Depot) since 1971. In this petition, as originally framed, the petitioner had prayed that the impending departmental proceedings against him on the same charges as that of the criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted, bequashed. The admission Bench on 17.11.1989 issued the notice as to why rule nisi be not issued and stayed the. departmental enquiry. In spite of the stay of enquiry proceeding the respondent made out that the enquiry was completed before the receipt of the stay order and the punishment was imposed of stoppage of three increments for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The petitioner was not served with a copy of the final order in the departmental proceeding. The same was annexed with the counter affidavit to the original writ petition.Thereafter the writ petition was amended, challenging the said order also.

(2) In the writ petition the petitioner has also claimed that he should have been promoted at the appropriate time when his juniors were promoted.The promotions were denied to him because of the pendency of the criminal case in which he was later on acquired. According to him a sealed cover procedure was followed by different DPCs right from 1986. During the course of hearing the respondent Corporation was directed to produce the sealed covers and it was found that the petitioner was found fit for promotion.

(3) The petitioner has submitted that the charges in the criminal case and the present departmental proceedings were completely identical and, therefore, the charge-sheet and further proceedings were bad. The charge-sheet in the criminal case and the charge-sheet in the departmental proceeding was readout to us. We are satisfied that they are quite identical. The petitioner has Been honorably acquitted by the Appellate Court in the said criminal case and the judgment has become final. It is now a well-settled position in law that the departmental proceeding cannot be held on identical charges as that of a criminal trial in which the person is acquitted. On this short ground itself the writ petition has to be allowed.

(4) The petitioner has further submitted that under Regulation 60(2)of the Service Regulations applicable to the Fci, if the minor penalty proceedings have adverse effect on the retiral benefit of an employee, then the departmental proceedings should be held as if the major penalty is to be imposed.Since the minor penalty of stoppage of three increments was imposed on the petitioner which will affect the retrial benefits such as pension and gratuity, the major penalty procedure should have been followed. His other submission is that the departmental proceedings for the allegations of the petitioner's conduct more than a decade back, is bad in law because of latches. We need not go into these submissions since we are satisfied that on the first submission itself the departmental proceedings and the punishment imposed should be quashed.Indeed the counsel for the respondent Corporation had hardly any argument to be advanced on this question.

(5) Since the petitioner had been honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are also now being quashed,there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied the chance of promotion when his juniors were promoted. As stated earlier we have seen the confidential reports as well as the sealed covers kept by the Dpc in which the petitioner was found fit for promotion. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to promotion from 1986 and we order accordingly.

(6) The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Counsel fee Rs. 1000.00.