M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 5869 of 1989 and C.W.P. No. 6502 of 1989.
(2.) Petitioners were members of ministerial establishment of the Sessions Division of District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak. They had put in about 20 years service when on 11.4.1985 they were placed under suspension on the allegation that a criminal case under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 had been registered against them. According to the prosecution version they were found under the influence of liquor and were apprehended by the police causing nuisance. They were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- by order dated 14.9.1985 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Against their conviction and sentence imposed on them, the petitioners approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision No. 1432 of 1985, which was allowed by Mr. Justice AJ/Chowdhri on 22.9.1988. It was found by the learned Judge that the offence had not been brought home to the accused and on that account revision petition was allowed and the petitioners were acquitted However, as the petitioners had, in the meantime, been charge-sheeted (m 17.10.1985 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak on the basis of the same allegations of misconduct of taking liquor and causing nuisance etc. on 11.4.1985, instead of re-instating the petitioners, inquiry was completed against them. As a result thereof, on 313.1989 the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the petitioners from service on the same allegations which were the subject matter of earlier criminal trial in which the petitioners had been exonerated by this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that it has been settled by now by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that if a Government servant has been acquitted by Court of law on certain allegations then a departmental inquiry cannot be held on the same charges in which he has been exonerated. Meaning thereby, departmental inquiry cannot be initiated and the trial held afresh on the same charges which have already been found untrue or have not been proved in a Court of law. On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Rathee, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently contested the petition by pleading that in fact the petitioners had been found under influence of liquor creating nuisance in the night and that there was enough material on record to sustain the charge.;