RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Adhiniyam, 2005, is to an order dated 19.11.2018 passed in WP.26049/2018; whereby, the claim of the petitioner for direction to respondents to decide his representation for reversing the order of punishment passed in the Departmental Enquiry on the anvil of the order of acquittal has been declined on the ground that in the proceedings of Departmental Enquiry charges of misconduct were found proved on the basis of evidence and preponderance of probability thereof. Learned Single Judge also observed that acquittal in a criminal case, where prosecution is under obligation to prove the criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, in such a case, is of no assistance to the appellant. Learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions in "BHEL vs. M. Mani [(2018) 1 SCC 285] and Karnataka SRTC vs. M. G. Vittal Rao [(2012) 1 SCC 442] to substantiate the findings.

(2.) The facts on record reveal that appellant, while posted as Forest Guard at forest post Shanichara Range Morena on 26.05.2009, misbehaved with four employees and besides hurling abuses also threatened them of dire consequences. The said incident led to his suspension by order dated 29.05.2009. Charge-sheet was issued on 25.06.2009. On appellant denying charges, it culminated into a regular departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer returned the findings against the appellant vide enquiry report dated 16.06.2010. The disciplinary authority after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant affirmed the establishment of the second charge and inflicted the penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect by order dated 30.09.2010 on the findings that:

(3.) In respect of the same incident, the appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 294 , 323 , 506 Part II of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for brevity " Special Act ") before the Special Judge under Special Act , Morena (M.P.), in Special Sessions Trial No.115/2009. Wherein, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly, by judgment dated 12.03.2018 acquitted the appellant from the said charge.