M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in the instant case is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service after the judgment of acquittal passed in his favour.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: While the petitioner was pasted in Senha Block as Villager Level Worker, an F.I.R. was lodged in 1997 on complaints made by some of the persons of the said Block regarding taking some amount by the petitioner from the beneficiaries at the time of distribution of money under the scheme known as 'Indira Awas Nirman Scheme'. The petitioner was served with a memo of charge and a departmental proceeding was initiated. On the basis of the complaint, a criminal case also proceeded against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, after holding inquiry and on the basis of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment of withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect. The said order of punishment was confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal vide order dated 28.2.2001. However, in the criminal case initiated against the petitioner, he has been acquitted from the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga interms of judgment dated 20.7.2005 in Tr. No. 239 of 2005. After acquittal, petitioner made representation before the respondent -Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding. When the representation was not considered, petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 5807 of 2006 which was disposed of on 2.11.2006 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga considered the representation and rejected the same holding that the order of punishment is just and proper. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailed the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground, inter alia, that the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding cannot be sustained in law when on the same set of facts and evidences, petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2006)IIILLJ1075SC .
(3.) MR . Manjul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that merely because the judgment of acquittal has been passed in the criminal case, the respondent is not bound to reconsider the order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 1 Supreme 697.;