Telangana High Court

S Venkateswara Rao vs The Union Of India on 31 January, 2025

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                 WRIT PETITION No.7619 of 2024
ORDER:

Seeking to declare the action of respondents 4 and 5 in

continuing the departmental proceedings against the petitioner as

illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel,

representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Smt.L.Pranathi Reddy, learned senior Standing

Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned senior counsel has submitted that while the

petitioner was working as Post Incharge, Sanath Nagar RPF Post,

Hyderabad, he was charged by the CBI vide case No.RC 6(A)/2006.

Subsequently, the departmental proceedings were initiated against

the petitioner and charge sheet vide Lr.No.X/SC/227/153/12/

2006, dated 18.10.2006, was issued, against which, the petitioner

has approached this Court vide W.P.No.22858 of 2006 wherein this

Court vide order dated 03.11.2006 has granted stay of

departmental proceedings. Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment

dated 23.02.2010 passed by the CBI Court, petitioner was

dismissed from service vide Order No.2010/Sec(ABE)/PRR/5/7,

dated 17.06.2010. As against the conviction rendered by the CBI

Court, petitioner has filed a statutory appeal before this Court vide

Criminal Appeal No.339/2010 wherein the petitioner was acquitted

from all the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated

29.11.2022. Thereafter, even though petitioner made several

representations seeking reinstatement, no action was taken

thereon. As such, he filed W.P.No.9752 of 2023 wherein this Court

vide order dated 25.04.2023 has directed the respondents to

consider the representation dated 29.12.2022 submitted by the

petitioner. In compliance thereof, respondent No.3 has passed an

order No.2023/Sec(E)/DAR-3/17, dated 28.06.2023, setting aside

the dismissal order. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated

into service vide Battalion Order No.61/2023, dated 28.06.2023,

and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation vide Battalion Order No.62/2023, dated

30.06.2023. However, the period of dismissal of the petitioner was

treated as 'Not on Duty' on the principle 'No Work No Pay', though

earlier another officer, after acquittal in criminal case, was

reinstated into service duly regularizing his services with

consequential benefits. But, the petitioner is denied the said

benefit, which is discriminatory in nature. Since the respondents

have not paid his retirement benefits, petitioner made

representations dated 30.10.2023 and 02.11.2023. Considering

the same, the respondents have initiated the process for

provisional pension vide Lr.No.5BN/PF/Ex.IPF-SVR/2023-766,

dated 11.11.2023. Due to delay in granting pension benefits,

petitioner made representation dated 12.02.2024 through email

and 15.03.2024 through registered post. Thereafter, respondent

No.4 vide letter dated 15.03.2024 informed respondent No.5 to

initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Following

the same, respondent No.5 vide impugned order dated 18.03.2024

has appointed an Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3.1) Learned senior counsel has further contended that the

charges framed in the charge sheet in the departmental

proceedings dated 18.10.2006 and the charges framed in the

criminal case and subsequent appeal are similar in nature. As

such, the continuation of departmental proceedings will be in

contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1. Further, the stay obtained by

the petitioner in W.P.No.22858 of 2006 was lapsed by way of the

order dated 13.10.2011 yet the respondents have not taken action

regarding the disciplinary proceedings since then. Therefore, the

action of the respondents in appointing an Enquiry Officer after

substantial period of 13 years that too after his retirement cannot

be sustained and continuation of departmental proceedings is

(2024) 1 SCC 175

illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as

held by the High Court of Madras in its order dated 12.04.2022

passed in W.P.No.34197 of 2016. Learned senior counsel has

further contended that continuation of departmental proceedings

in the absence of specific provision is not maintainable as upheld

by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Pratap

Kishore Dash v. High Court of Orissa 2. Hence, it is prayed to

quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the

petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on G.M. Tank v. State

of Gujarat 3 and Jerome D'Silva v. The Regional Transport

Authority, South Kanara 4.

4) Per contra, the learned senior standing counsel has

contended that a criminal case was registered against the

petitioner on the ground that while he was working as

IPF/S.C.Railway, Anathnagar, he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/-

and accepted Rs.7,000/- from one P.Lingam for not implicating

him in crime No.1/2006, dated 18.01.2006, for the offence

punishable under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act. In connection with

said case, petitioner was arrested, remanded to judicial custody

and released on bail on 03.02.2006. Therefore, a charge sheet was

issued under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987,

2009 SCC Online 335

AIR 2006 SC 2129

AIR 1952 Madras 853

vide Memorandum No.X/SC/227/12/2006, dated 18.10.2006.

Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioner has filed

W.P.No.22858 of 2006 wherein this Court vide order dated

03.11.2006 has granted stay of departmental proceedings on the

ground that the charges framed against the petitioner in the

departmental proceedings were similar to that of the charges

framed in the criminal proceedings. Thereafter, on 23.02.2010, the

petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI Cases and

following the said conviction, he was dismissed from service vide

order dated 17.06.2010 in terms of Rule 162.2 and 162.4.2 of

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. As such, W.P.No.22858 of

2006 was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 13.10.2011.

As against the conviction rendered against the petitioner, he filed

an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2010 wherein vide

judgment dated 29.11.2022 petitioner was acquitted from the

charges levelled against him on the ground of benefit of doubt.

4.1) After the said acquittal, petitioner made representation on

15.12.2022 seeking his reinstatement into service and also filed an

appeal before the DG/RPF against the dismissal order dated

17.06.2010, however, without disclosing the dismissal of

W.P.No.22858 of 2006 filed by him against the departmental

proceedings dated 18.10.2006. Further, as against the acquittal of

the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2010, the CBI has filed

SLP (Crl) No.7804/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

27.04.2023 (Diary No.17883/2023) and the same is pending

adjudication. Further, seeking reinstatement with all consequential

benefits, petitioner filed W.P.No.9752 of 2023 and the same was

disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2023 directing the respondents

to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on

29.12.2022 within a period of four weeks. In compliance of the

said direction of this Court, respondents have examined the case of

the petitioner and reinstated him into service w.e.f.28.06.2023 vide

order dated 28.06.2023 with instructions to examine the possibility

of instituting departmental proceedings after an objective

consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the petitioner has joined the service on 29.06.2023 AN

and retired on 30.06.2023 AN on attaining the age of

superannuation. After such objective consideration of the matter,

the Railway Board issued letter dated 15.03.2024 stating that the

charge sheet dated 18.10.2006 issued against the petitioner is

pending in view of dismissal of W.P.No.22858 of 2006.

Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct inquiry

into the charges framed against the petitioner vide charge sheet

dated 18.10.2006.

4.2) Learned senior Standing Counsel has contended that while

submitting the representation for reinstatement, the petitioner has

suppressed the factum of pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. In view of pendency of SLP, the petitioner cannot

be said to have wholly acquitted from all the charges. Further, on

12.03.2024 the provisional pension was sanctioned by respondent

No.5 in favour of the petitioner and the same was forwarded to

Sr.DFM, Southern Railway, Trichy, for releasing the provisional

pension to the petitioner. But, due to implementation of Railway

Pension System, an HRMS ID has to be created and the said

process has been started and the provision pension will be

provided to the petitioner at the earliest. It is further contended

that as per letter No.2006/Sec(E)DAR-3/36 (Policy), dated

31.10.2018, in cases where a person is being prosecuted for

criminal charge, the simultaneous departmental proceedings does

not come in the ambit of double jeopardy as departmental

proceedings generally focus on the issue that his indulgence in

such activity comes under the purview of misconduct, damaging

reputation of department, etc. Hence, the acquittal in criminal

case does not necessarily should facilitate allowing the second

appeal.

4.3) Learned senior Standing Counsel has further argued that as

per Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, only

provisional pension can be paid when departmental or judicial

proceedings are pending. As the petitioner is facing both the

departmental and judicial proceedings, he is eligible only for

provisional pension and accordingly the same was sanctioned by

respondent No.5 on 12.03.2024 itself. Therefore, she prayed to

dismiss the writ petition duly vacating the interim order so as to

enable the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective parties.

6) A perusal of the record reveals that charge sheet dated

18.10.2006 was issued against the petitioner on the sole ground

that a criminal case in RC No.6A/2006, dated 21.01.2006, is

registered against the petitioner by CBI, Hyderabad, alleging that

he was indulged in corrupt practices and demanded illegal

gratification of Rs.10,000/- from one P.Lingam for dispensing with

his arrest in crime No.1/2006 for the offence under Section 3(a) of

RP (UP) Act registered on 18.01.2006. Further, the criminal case

registered by the CBI was numbered as C.C.No.6/2006 wherein

the Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases, Hyderabad, has convicted

and sentenced the petitioner and another to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of four years each and also to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two

months for the charge under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code,

vide judgment dated 23.02.2010. As a result thereof, petitioner

was dismissed from service vide proceedings No.2010/Sec(ABE)/

PRR/5/7, dated 17.06.2010. Aggrieved by the conviction, dated

23.02.2010, petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court

vide Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2010 and vide judgment dated

29.11.2022, the said appeal was allowed, the conviction and

sentence imposed by the trial Court was set aside and the

petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 25.04.2023 passed in

W.P.No.9752 of 2023 and on considering the representation of the

petitioner, he was reinstated into service on 29.06.2023 and on

attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on

30.06.2023. Thereafter, vide impugned proceedings dated

15.03.2024, the respondents have appointed an Enquiry Officer to

enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge

sheet dated 18.10.2006 i.e. after a lapse of 13 years that too after

retirement of the petitioner.

7) The lis in this writ petition can be confined to 'whether the

departmental proceedings can be allowed to be continued against

the petitioner on the same set of facts in criminal proceedings?'

8) In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the charge sheet

against the petitioner is issued on the same set of charges, which

are the subject matter of criminal proceedings.

- 10 -

9) In this context it is relevant to the note that in G.M.Tank's

case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

31. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather

- 11 -

oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.

32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."

(emphasis added)

10) Similarly, in Ram Lal's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such technology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh.P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The

- 12 -

court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.

26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not prove" - in fact the charge even stood "disprove" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved".

27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M.Tank."

(emphasis added)

11) Coming to the instant case, admittedly, the charge memo

dated 18.10.2006 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that

criminal case was registered against the petitioner by the CBI,

Hyderabad, in crime No.6/2006. However, the petitioner was

acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated

29.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.339/2010.

- 13 -

Thereafter, on consideration of the representation of the petitioner,

he was reinstated into service on 29.06.2023 and retired on

30.06.2023. Therefore, there is no reason or ground in continuing

the departmental proceedings against the petitioner as the Article