The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI" SENTOR COUNSEL FOR SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : SMT L.PRANATHI REDDY (€r SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT) The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.7619 of 2024 Seeking to declare the action of respondents 4 and 5 in continuing the departmental proceedings against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Hcard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsei for the petitioner, and Smt. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned senior counsel has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Post Incharge, Sanath Nagar RPF Post, Hyderabad, he was charged by the CBI uide case No.RC 6(A)/2006. Subsequently, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet vide Lr.No.X lSCl227 ll53ll2l 2006, dated 18.10.2006, was issued, against which, the petitioner has approached this Courl uide W.P.No.22B58 of 2006 wherein this Court uide order dated 03.i i.2006 has granted stay of departmental proceedings. Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment dated 23.02.20 i 0 passed by the CBI Court, petitioner was dismissed from service vide Order No.2010/Sec(ABE)/PRR/5/7, dated 17.06-201O. As against the conviction rendered by the CBI ,(,- 2- court, petitioner has {iled a statutory appeal before this court vide Criminal Appeal No.339/2010 wherein the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 29.1L.2O22. Thereafter, even though petitioner made several representations seeking reinstatement, no action was taken tlrereon. As such; he frled w.p.No.9752 of 2e23 wherein this court vide order dated 25.04.2023 has directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 29 .12.2022 submitted by the petitioner. In compliance thereof, respondent No.3 has passed an order No.2O23lSec(E)/DAR -31 tT, dated 28.06.2023, serting aside the dismissal order. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide Battalion Order No.6l/ 2023, d,ated 2g.06.2023, and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation vide Battalion Order No.62 / 2023, dated 30.06.2023. However, the period of dismissal of the petitioner was treated as 'Not on Duty, on the principle ,No Work No pay,, though earlier another officer, after acquittal in criminal case, was reinstated into service duly regularizing his services with consequential benefits. But, the petitioner is denied the said benelit, which is discriminatory in nature. since the respondents have not paid his retirement benefits, petitioner made representations dated 30.1O.2023 and 02.11.2023. Considering the same, the respondents have initiated the process for J. provisional pension vide Lr.No.5BN/PF/Ex.lPF-SVR/2023-766, dated 11.11.2023. Due to delay in granting pension benelits, petitioner made representation dated 12.02.2024 thro:ugh email and 15.O3.2O24 through registered post. Thereafter, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 15.03.2024 informed respondent No.5 to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Following the same, respondent No.5 vide impugned order dated 18.03.2024 has appointed an trnquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. 1) [rarned senior counsel has further contended that the charges framed in the charge sheet in the departmental proceedings dated 18. 1O.2006 and tfr. framed in the "fr".g." criminal case and subsequent appeal are similar in nature. As such, the conLinuation of departmental proceedings will be in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rann lal o. State of Rdjastlro,nr. Further, the stay obtained by the petitioner in W.P.No.22858 of 2006 was lapsed by way of the order dated 13.10.2011 yet the respondents have not taken action regarding the disciplinary proceedings since then. Therefore, the action of the respondents in appointing an Enquiry Ofhcer after substantiai period of 13 years that too after his retirement cannot be sustained and continuation of departmental proceedings is ' lzoz+1 t scc t7s illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as held by the High Court of Madras in its order dated, 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.34 197 of 2016. Learned senior counsel has further contendecl that continuation of departmental proceedings in the absence of specific provision is not maintainable as upheld by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa rn Pratap Kishore Drrsh a. High Court o.f Ortssr:2. Hence, it is prayed to quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on G.M. To.nk o. State of Gujarats and Jerome D'Silua o. The Regional Transport Authoritg, South Kanaraa. 4l Per contra, the learned senior standing counsel has contended that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the ground that while he was working as IPF/S.C.Railway, Anathnagar, he demanded bribe of Rs. 10,00O/- I and accepted Rs.7,0O0/- from one P.Lingam for not implicating him in crime No. l/2006, dated 18.01.2006, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act. In connection with said case, petitioner was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and released on bail on O3.02.2OO6. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, ' 2oo9 scc online 335 t etn 2o06 sc 2t2g o RtR t952 Madras 853 I ,l -5 uide Memorandum No.X/SCl227 l12/2006, dated 18.10.2006. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioner has hled W.P.No.22858 of 2006 wherein this Court vide order dated

03.11.2006 has granted stay of departmental proceedings on the ground that the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmentai proceedings were similar to that of. the charges framed in the criminal proceedings. Thereafter, on 23.O2.2O1O, the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI Cases and following the said conviction, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.06.2010 in terms of Ruie 762.2 and 162.4.2 o{ Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. As such, W.P.No.22B5B ol 2006 was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 13.10.201 1. As against the conviction rendered against the petitioner, he filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2O1O wherein vide judgment dated 29. 1 1 .2022 petitroner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the ground of benellt ofdoubt.

4.1) After the said acquittal, petitioner made representation on

15.12.2022 seeking his reinstatement into service and also filed an appeal before the DG/ RPF against the dismissal order dated

17.06.2010, however, without disclosing the dismissal of W.P.No.22858 of 2OO6 filed by him against the departmental proceedings dated 18.10.2OO6. Further, as against the acquittal of the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.339 of 2O1O, the CBI has fi1ed 6 SLP (Crl) No.7aO4 12023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.04.2023 (Diary No.1788312O23) and the same is pending adjudication. Further, seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits, petitioner filed W.P.No.9752 of 2023 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2023 directing the respondents to dispose of tLie representation liled by the petitioner on

29.12.2022 within a period of four weeks. In compliance of the said direction of this Court, respondents have examined the case of the petitioner and reinstated him into service w.e.f.28.O6.2023 vide order dated 28.06.2023 with instructions to examine the possibiiity of instituting departmental proceedings after an objective consideration of ali the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined the service on 29.O6.2023 AN and retired on 30.06.2023 AN on attaining the age of superannuation. After such objective consideration of the matter, the Railway Board issued letter dated 15.03.2024 stating that the charge sheet dated 18. 10.2006 issued against the petitioner is pending in view of dismissal of W.P.No.22858 of 2006. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 18- 1 O.2OO6.

4.2) Learned senior Standing Counsel has contended that while submitting the representation for reinstatement, the petitioner has / 1 suppressed the factum of pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of pendency of SLP, the petitioner cannot be said to have wholly acquitted from all the charges' Further' on 12.Ct3.2024 the provisional pension was sanctioned by respondent No.S in favour of the petitioner and the same was forwarded to Sr.DFM, Southern Railway, Trichy, for releasing the provisional pension to the petitioner. But, due to implementation of Railway Pension System, an HRMS ID has to be created and the said process has been started and the provision pension will be provided to the petitioner at the earliest' It is further contended that as per letter No'20O6/Sec(E)DAR-3/36 (Policy)' dated 3l.lo.20ls,incaseswhereapersonisbeingprosecutedfor criminal charge, the simultaneous departmental proceedings does notcomeintheambitofdoublejeopardyasdepartmental proceedings generally focus on the issue that his indulgence in such activity comes under the purview of misconduct, damaging reputation of department, etc. Hence, the acquittal in criminal case does not necessarily should facilitate allowing the second appeal

4.3) Learned senior Standing Counsel has further argued that as per Rule 1O of Railway Services (Pension) Rules' 1993' only provisional pension can be paid when departmental or judicial proceedings are pending' As the petitioner is facing both the / 8- departmental and judicial proceedings, he is eligible only for provisional pension and accordingly the same was sanctioned by respondent No.S on 12.03.2024 itself. Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the \.\,rit petition duly vacating the interim order so as to enable the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respectrve parties 6) A perusal of the record reveals that charge sheet dated 18.10.2006 was issued against the petitioner on the sole ground that a criminal case in RC No.6A/2006, dated 21.01.2006, is registered against rhe petitioner by CBI, Hyderabad, alleging that he was indulged in corrupt practices and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10,O00/- from one p.Lingam for dispensing with his arrest in crime No- 1 / 20o6 for the offence under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act registered on 18.01.2006. Further, the criminal case registered by the CBI was numbered as C.C.No.6/2O06 wherein the Special Judge for trial ofACB Cases, Hyderabad, has convicted and sentenced the petitioner and another to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years each and also to pay fine of Rs.2,O00/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the charge under Section L2O_B of Indian penal Code, vide judgment dated 23.O2.2O1O. As a result thereof, petitioner -9 - was dismissed from service vide proceedings No.20 1O/Sec(ABE)/ PRR/5/7, dated 17.06.2010. Aggrieved by the conviction, dated

23.O2.2O1O, petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No.339 ol 2OlO and vide judgment dated

29.11.2022, the said appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 25.O4.2023 passed in w.P.No.9752 of 2023 and on considering the representation of the l petitioner, he was reinstated into service on 29.06.2023 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on

30.06.2023. Thereafter, vide impugned proieedings dated

15.03.2024, the respondents have appointed an Enquiry Ofllcer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 18.10.2006 i.e. after a lapse of 13 years that too after retirement of the petitioner. 7\ The lis in this writ petition can be confined to khether the departmental proceedings can be aliowed to be continued against the petitioner on the same set of facts in criminal proceedings?' S) In the case on hand, it is to be noted that the charge sheet i I against the petitioner is issued on the same set of charges, which are the subject matter of criminal proceedings. - t0- r 9) In this context it is relevant to the note that in G.M.Tank's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

31. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing fr:r the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and simiiar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appeliant arrd the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. in other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one ald the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or gralted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant,s residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Ofiicer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other depa-rtmental witnesses were tJle only witnesses examined by the Enquiry O{Iicer who by relying upon their statement came to the conciusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appella-nt beyond aly reasonatrle doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the hnding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made a-fter a regular trial and on hot contest- Under these circumstances, it would be unjust ald unfair and rather - ll - oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmentaJ proceedings to stand.

32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instart case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be walid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the disrnissal, the same requires to be taken rote of and the declsion in Paul Anthotry's case (supral will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal fiied by the appellant deserves to be allowed." (cmphasis added) l0) Similarly, in Rcm Lol's case (referred suPra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "25. Expressions like "benefrt of doubt" and "honorabiy acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such technolory. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh.P-3, the originat marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on beha.lf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The -12- h court in judiclal review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.

26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not prove" - in fact the charge even stood "disprove" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved". 27 . We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of t}.e frnding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and tl e orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stalrd. The chatges were not just similar but identical and the ewideace, witaesses and circumstances were all the same. Tii" i" a ",". where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stald will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M.Tank." (emPhasis added) 1l) Coming to the instant case, admittedly, the charge memo dated 18. L0.2006 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that criminal case was registered against the petitioner by the CBI, Hyderabad, in crime No.6/ 2006. However, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated

29.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.339/2010. w Thereafter, on consideration of the representation of the petitioner, he was reinstated into service on 29.06.2023 and retired on

30.06.2023. Therefore, there is no reason or ground in continuing the departmental proceedings against the petitioner as the Article of Charge is issued on same set facts and also in view of the 1aw laid down in the above referred.judgments. 12) For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide letter No.X/ SC I 227 I 153 I 12l2006 dated 18. 10.2O06 of respondent No.4, and appointr,nent of Inquiry Offrcer vide letters dated

15.03.2024 and 18.03.2O24 are set aside. However, as the SLP filed by the CBI against the acquittal of the petitioner is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner is granted liberty to make a suitable representation to the respondents for release of pensionary benefits, after disposal of the SLP. However, the respondents shall endeavor to see that the petitioner is being paid the provisional pension. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIST RAR S ION OFFICER The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways. New Delhi. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail B'havan ruew Oeff,i. The Director Generar Rairway protection rorce, niitway Board, New Derhi. The Inspector General cum Board Extention, Dayabasli, New Delhi. The.Commanding Officer, Sth Bettalion, Railway protection Special Force, Kimber Garden, Khajamalai, Tiruchirapalli, famil tt"Ou. One CC to SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI, Advocate [OPUC] 91? e.c to sMr L.PRANATH| REDDY tSist ion cirurnnr GOW) Advocate [OpUCl Two CD Copies Railway p.t".tion bpecial For"e, n"ii*ay 'CSC_ \ To

1. 2. 3. 4.

6. rAs 7. SA I I EH1 .'., l-rC 14' e 3 1t r[B zfffi * -Ev. 7_ oI HIGH COURT DATED:3110112025 ORDER WP.No.7619 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. {