BAIDYANATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Assistant Manager of Shahpur Government Godown under respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. During his posting a theft was committed in the said godown and the matter was reported to the senior officers. On verification of the godown shortage of huge amount of foodgrains was found. Consequently a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner under Section 409 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was also charge sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. On proof of charges, in the departmental proceeding, final order of punishment was passed whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.08.1977.

(2.) MR . M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once the delinquent is exonerated from the charges in a criminal case by judgment of acquittal he is entitled to be reinstated in service after reviewing the order passed in the departmental proceeding. According to the learned counsel it is a case of clean acquittal and therefore the order passed in the departmental proceeding cannot be sustained in law. I do not find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. As a matter of fact in the criminal case no prosecution witness was examined and therefore the criminal Court had no option but to acquit the petitioner for want of evidence.

(3.) FROM bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph quoted hereinabove it appears that the evidence of the prosecution was closed as none of the charge sheet witnesses could be examined by the prosecution. For that reason the petitioner was acquitted. In such circumstance the departmental proceeding and the order of punishment cannot be vitiated in law.