Rajasthan High Court
Virendra Kumar vs State on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 597/2002
Virendra Kumar aged about 28 years S/o Shri Shiv Ram R/o V &
P Katara, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Home Secretariat
Jaipur
2. Superindendent of Police (District) Kota City, Kota
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jerry Varughese, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. S. Naruka, Adv. for
Mr. Rupin Kala, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
01/12/2022
1. The present writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:-
"(i) This writ may be allowed and order 15.12.2001
passed by the respondents rejecting the
representation of the petitioner be quashed and set
aside and further order dated 06.01.1994 be also
quashed and set aside in view of the judgment
passed by the Court dated 16.07.2001
(ii) Further direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner with all consequential benefits on the post
of Constable on which he was appointed and was
working with the respondent.
(iii) That cost of this writ may also be granted to the
petitioner
(iv) Any other suitable direction, which the Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case mentioned herein above may be passed in
favour of the humble petitioner."
(2 of 4) [CW-597/2002]
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially
appointed as a Constable vide order dated 13.01.1992, after due
verification of his character certificate as well as the medical
examination. However, during the course of his probation, a
complaint was registered against the petitioner alleging that he
had submitted forged and false certificates before the concerned
authorities and that he did not have the requisite educational
qualifications required for the said post. It was further alleged
that the petitioner did not appear in the examination process by
himself. Rather, another person had appeared on behalf of the
petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, an enquiry was
conducted and the petitioner was discontinued from service vide
order dated 06.01.1994 (Annexure-2).
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that on the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was
filed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
of IPC. However, vide order dated 16.07.2001, the Hon'ble Court
acquitted the petitioner of all charges. It was further submitted
that no appeal has been filed against the said order of acquittal.
Therefore, learned counsel argued that as per the settled criminal
jurisprudence, if an individual is honorably acquitted and the
allegations against him are set aside by the Court, then he is duly
entitled for reinstatement. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
impugned order dated 06.01.1994 should be set aside and the
petitioner should be reinstated in service.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
argued that the petitioner was acquitted on account of non-
availability of witnesses to prove the FSL report and therefore, his
acquittal was not honorable. Learned counsel further relied upon
(3 of 4) [CW-597/2002]
the settled position of law as held in (2021) 10 SCC 136 titled as
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs.
Anil Kanwariya and (2016) 8 SCC 471 titled as Avtar Singh
Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that departmental
actions/enquiry and criminal prosecution in the courts of law are
two entirely separate proceedings and the same do not overlap
each other. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the petitioner was on probation for a period of two
years. Hence, they were within their rights to terminate the
petitioner's employment, without issuing any notice to him. In
this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in (2021) 4 SCT 738 titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs.
Union of India through Chief of Army Staff & Ors., wherein it
was held that during the period of probation, it is always open to
the employer to terminate an employee's temporary service,
without issuing any notice or carrying out the requirements under
the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both
sides, judgments cited at Bar and scanned the record of the case.
6. It is observed that the petitioner was discharged from
service vide order dated 06.01.1994 (Annexure-2). Moreover, the
present writ petition was subsequently filed in the year 2002, after
the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC i.e. after a lapse of 8 years.
Furthermore, it is observed that the order dated 16.07.2001,
acquitting the petitioner of the said charges was passed on the
basis of non-material consideration/technical grounds i.e. non-
availability of witnesses to prove the FSL report. It is also
pertinent to note that when the petitioner was discontinued from
(4 of 4) [CW-597/2002]
service, he was serving on probation. Hence, the provisions of the
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965, would
not be applicable to the petitioner's case. In this regard, the
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in the
case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), would be squarely applicable.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering that the writ petition was filed in the year 2002
and the show cause notice arose in 2002 as well; that no interim
order was passed during the pendency of the proceedings; that
the petitioner was on probation when he was discontinued from
service; that the scope of departmental action when juxtaposed
with criminal prosecution in courts is on an entirely different
footing and relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court referred
above (supra), this court is not inclined to allow the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending
applications are also dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja/76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
