TAKHATSINH MOTISINH PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARODA
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-20
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 19,1988

THAKHATSINH MOTISINH PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,BARODA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S.R.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR V. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES [CASES REFERRED]
SURINDER KUMAR V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. [CASES REFERRED]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NAGPUR CIVIL LINES NAGPUR VS. RAMCHANDRA [CASES REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KIRITSINH MOHOBATSINH BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-44] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.B.SHAH - (1.)In this petition the contention of the petitioners is that the suspension order (Annexure A) dated 24-4-1987 be quashed and set aside as they are acquitted by the Criminal Court (the petitioners have produced the acquittal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Karjan on 30/01/1988 in Criminal Case No. 503 of 1987 As per the said order the petitioners along with other persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Secs. 224 223 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case the petitioners were accused Nos. 7 & 8. The Court has arrived at the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 to 6 of that case absconded from the Court custody from Karjan sub-jail by breaking open the Jail. It also arrived at the conclusion that the said accused caused grievous hurt to witness Ranjitsinh Kanaksinh and convicted them. With regard to the case against the present petitioners(accused Nos. 7 & 8 of that case) the Court held that before prosecuting the petitioners sanction under Sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not obtained. It also observed that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 8 was at the relevant time on duty. It observed that the world taken from the petitioners was against the rules. On the aforesaid grounds the Judicial Magistrate acquitted them.
(2.)The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that once the acquittal order is passed against the petitioners the impugned suspension order would not survive and the petitioners are required to be reinstated in service.
(3.)In my view this submission is without any substance because if we refer to the suspension order Annexure A it is clear that the petitioners are suspended pending departmental enquiry and not pending criminal trial. At present the departmental enquiry is not over. Hence it cannot be said that once they are acquitted in criminal case the petitioners are required to be reinstated in service. Their suspension order continues till the departmental enquiry is over.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.