JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the U.P. Police Force in the year 1987. On 22.8.1997 a first information report under Sections 147, 148, 307, 412 I.P.C. And, under Section 25 of the Arms Act was lodged against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner was arrested, and while in jail, he was suspended and, thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from the service by an order dated 23.12.1997, after dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 8 [2] [b] of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank [Punishment and Appeal ] Rules 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1991]. The authority while dismissing the services of the petitioner held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry.
2. The petitioner challenged the order of the dismissal in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36535 of 1998. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Sessions Trial No.480 of 1997 was decided by a judgement dated 11.8.2000 in which the petitioner was acquitted. Based on the aforesaid acquittal, the petitioner's writ petition was disposed of by a judgement dated 21.3.2002 directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, who would consider the matter in the light of the judgement passed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 20.3.2002. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed not only for the quashing of the order of suspension, the order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal, but also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
3. It transpires that the co-accused Shiv Kumar Sharma, who was also involved in the same crime was suspended and remained under suspension till the disposal of the criminal case. It further transpires that based on the acquittal, the co-accused Shiv Kumar Sharma was reinstated in service.
4. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 8[2][b] of the Rules of 1991, was arbitrary and illegal and further submitted that there was no material before the authorities to dispense with the enquiry. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgements, namely, 2005 [2] ESC 1229 Ravindra Raghav v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2005[1] ESC 567 Dharam Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.
A.K.Kaul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Chief Security Officer and Ors. Vs.Singasan Rabi Das 1985 SC 251 Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Anr. V. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Ors.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from the service on account of certain criminal charges levelled against him and, on the same charges, the petitioner had been acquitted by a criminal Court. Therefore, on this short ground, the petitioner was liable to be reinstated in the service. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a co-accused, who was also involved and chargesheeted under the same provisions of the Indian Penal Code, was reinstated after being acquitted from the criminal Court and, therefore the petitioner should also be given the same treatment and the denial of his reinstatement by the respondents was therefore, discriminatory. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any case, after the acquittal, the respondents should have conducted an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned orders and that the authorities were justified in dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 8 [2][b] of the Rules of 1991 and even after the acquittal of the petitioner on a technicality by a criminal Court, the position had not changed and the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that merely because the petitioner had been acquitted on a technicality by a criminal court does not entitle him for an automatic reinstatement in the service and that the authorities were competent to review and pass a fresh order. In the present case, the appellate authority, as directed by this Court, considered the matter and did not find it fit to modify the order of dismissal. Consequently, the petitioner wass not entitled for any relief With regard to the dispensation of the enquiry, Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 reads as follows :
"8. Dismissal and removal- [l]No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
[2] No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after property inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules : Provided that this rule shall not apply-
[a] Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or [b] Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry ; or [c] Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the services of an employee could be dispensed with under the proviso to Clause [b] of Sub rule [2] of Rule 8 provided the disciplinary authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry and that the reasons must be recorded in writing. From a perusal of the order of dismissal, and from a perusal of the record, I find, that the enquiry was dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in which he was charge sheeted and that he was also in jail, Further, the petitioner had contacts with the criminal world and that the petitioner had spread such a terror on account of which no witness was coming forward to give evidence against him. The disciplinary authority further found that the action of the respondent had lowered the image of the department and that the public had lost confidence in the police force and therefore, retaining the petitioner would create indiscipline and was also not in public interest. In my view, the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority was neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant consideration nor did the disciplinary authority abused his powers while exercising its power under this provision. In my view, the disciplinary authority had rightly recorded its satisfaction for dispensing with the enquiry which was based on relevant materials. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispensation of the enquiry under Rule 8[2] [b] of the Rules of 1991 was arbitrary and that it was not based on relevant material, is patently erroneous.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was liable to be reinstated after being acquitted by a criminal Court, is not correct. It is a well settled principle of law that the degree of proof required in a departmental inquiry is vastly different than the degree of proof required to prove a criminal charge. In the departmental inquiry, the findings can be recorded in preponderance of probabilities and it is not necessary that the charge must be proved to the hilt. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are entirely different in nature. They operate in different fields and they have different objectives. The materials or the evidence in the two proceedings may or may not be the same and, in some cases, at least the material or evidence which would be relevant or open for consideration in the departmental proceeding, may be irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The Rules relating to the appreciation of the evidence in the two inquiries may also be different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and the trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different.
11. The law is well settled that the Inquiry Officer can come to a different conclusion than that arrived at by a Criminal Court and that it is immaterial whether the charges were identical or the witnesses were the same, as long as the power exercised by the Criminal Court and the inquiry under the relevant law and the service law was distinct and separate. There is no bar for holding a disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the trial, though the basis may be one and the same. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide, as to whether in a given case, it should keep the domestic inquiry pending till the outcome of the criminal trial or not.
12. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person can demand an automatic reinstatement in the service upon his acquittal from a criminal court. In the present case, the circumstances are, however, slightly different. The enquiry was dispensed with and the services of the petitioner was terminated without holding an enquiry. On the other hand, the petitioner has been acquitted from a criminal Court. The question which arises for consideration is, whether in the light of the judgement of the criminal Court, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement or whether the employer should have conducted an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991. In my opinion, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal Court does not entitle him for an automatic reinstatement. In a situation, where the employee remained suspended on account of a criminal charge and was acquitted by criminal Court, in that event, the employer had an option either to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings or reinstate him in the service, as had been done in the case of the co-accused, who was reinstated. In the case of the petitioner, since the petitioner had already been dismissed from the service, the authority had multiple options, namely, to review the order of the dismissal in the light of the judgement of the criminal Court and/or affirm the order of dismissal or recall the order of dismissal and reinstate the petitioner or hold an enquiry under Rule 14. If the domestic enquiry was based on the same criminal charges, in that situation, the disciplinary authority would have to consider whether it would be worthwhile to continue with the enquiry proceedings or not. However, if the domestic enquiry is initiated on some charges which is in addition to the criminal charges, in that situation, the disciplinary authority would be justified in initiating a domestic enquiry under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules.
13. In the light of the aforesaid, the domestic enquiry was initially dispensed with by the disciplinary authority on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and was chargesheeted and was also in jail. Another ground was that he had a liason with the criminals and had created a terror on account of which the witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner. The basic reason for dispensing with the enquiry was that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was also in jail and that his involvement lowered the image of the department. The petitioner has now been absolved by a criminal court, even though on a technicality. Therefore, one of the reasons for dispensing with the enquiry does not exist any longer. The petitioner has also been absolved of a criminal charge by a criminal Court. The net result is, that the criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges, even though on a technicality. On the other hand, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service after dispensing with a domestic enquiry under Rule 8[2][b] of the Rules of 1991. In my view, the petitioner was entitled for an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991.
14. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, , the Supreme court held-
"Whether it is a case falling under clause [b] of the second proviso or a provision in the service rules analogous thereto, the dispensing with the inquiry by the disciplinary authority was the result of the situation prevailing at that time. If the situation has changed when the appeal or revision is heard, the government servant can claim to have an inquiry held in which he can establish that he is not guilty of the charges on which he has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank."
15. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the dispensing of the enquiry was on account of the situation prevailing at that time. The situation changed after the acquittal of the petitioner from a criminal Court. The petitioner can now claim that his services was wrongly dismissed and that he should be given an opportunity to prove his innocence. At the present moment, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service without holding an enquiry.
16. In the light of the aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-accused has already been reinstated becomes significant. If the co-accused and the petitioner were suspended on the same charges, then it becomes all the more necessary for the respondents to take this factor into consideration while considering the matter either for reinstatement or for a fresh enquiry otherwise, the action of the respondents would be termed as discriminatory.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of dismissal was incorrect. In my opinion, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence in the domestic enquiry.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the appellate authority dated 20.3.2002 as well as the order of dismissal dated 23.12.1997 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority who would issue a charge sheet to the petitioner, if so advised, within one month from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgement and, after holding an enquiry, shall pass a final order within six months. It is made clear, that the petitioner will not be entitled for any pay or allowances for the period from the date of his dismissal to the date of this judgement.