Government servant, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment in Union of India v. K.V.lanakiram

Heard Sri M.Rameshwara Rao/ learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Ihe petitioxer approached this Court bv filinq the present writ petition seekinq the praver as under: ".....to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in not disposing of the representation of the petitioner Dt. 19- 09-2016, 23-0L-2OL7 and 17-01-2018 in terms of Judgment Dt.08-08-2016 passed Crl.R.C. No.1933/2006 by the Hon'ble High Court and not reinstating the petitioner into service as illegal, arbitrary unjust, u nconstitutiona I and contrary to Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct impugned order Cr.No.5930/2016/CPE/82, Dt.lt/1,2/2018 by the respondent No.2 in the interest ofjustice and pass such other order or orders..... " suspend the

3. The case of the petitioner. in brief, as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the oresent writ petition, is as followsl I l \ 2 SN,J W.P.No.38873 2022 The petitioner was appointed as an Excise Constable on 21.04.1992 and served at various stations in Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner was suspended on

12.06.1996 and again on 31.10.1998 due to a criminal case under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The petitioner was convicted on 17.12.1999 in S.C. No.241 of 7997 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagar Kurnool based on the said conviction the respondent NO.3 imposed the major penalty and dismissed the petitioner from service on

31.12.2004. However, the conviction was set aside by this Court in Cri.R.C. No. 1933 of 2006 on 08.08.2016. Despite repeated representations made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement into service, no action was taken by the respondents. In W.P. No. 31696 of 2018, this Court directed the department to consider his representations and the said representations were rejected on 11.12.2018 citing misconduct. A contempt case i.e., C.C. No. 3328 of 2018 was later closed, granting liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: 3 5N,l W.P.No.38873 2022 A) The relevant oortion of the oroceedinqs vide Cr. No.5930,/2OL6/CPE/82 d ted 11.12.2018 of the resDondent No.2- the Com issioner of Prohibition and Excise ( FAC ) issued to the petitioner herein is e xtra cted hereunder: "in the meanwhile, the individual approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.31696/2OlB seeking re-instatement rnto service. Then Hon'ble High Court in LA.No.1/2018 in W.P.No.31696 of 2018, dated.06-09- 2018, issued the following orders: "Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise is directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated. 19-09-2016, 23-01-2017 and 17-0l-2016 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order." In compliance to the above orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the case of the Petitioner as putforth in his representations dt.19-09-2016, 23-01- 2017 and 17-01-2016 has been carefully examined with reference to material available on records. relevant rules and judicial decisions, the following observations are drawn. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was involved in a Criminal offence of grave nature involving kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. He was tried u/s 366, 376 of IPC. The Act oF the Petitioner is unbecoming of a Government Servant. 4 5N.j W. P.No.38873 2022 Apart from criminal proceedings, the pet tioner was also tried in departmental proceedings for v olation of Conduct rules. Charges were framed against . im by the Prohibition and Excise Superint(rndent Mahabubnagar vice Cr.No.4212362/96, dt.20-07-1996 and the inquiry conducted by the then Sub Divisional Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nagarkurnool. The purpose of imposing punishments are twofold. Firstly, it is intended to make the delinquent suffer for his misconduct and secondly it is intended to work as a deterrent to others. 4s could be seen from _'rf the Hon'ble Hiqh Court in Crl,Rc.No.1933 of _2006, dated O8-O8-2O16. the conviction of the pe!a_t-!_q-ne.I was ouashed bv the Hon'ble Hioh Court !n the oround that the prosecution failed to orove its case aqainst the accused bevond all reasenable doubt. Thus, the fact remained that the petltioner was involved in an act of moral turpitude ald act unbecominq of a Government servant, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment in Union of India Vs K.V.lanakiram (AIR HCI SC 210) held the view that the least that is expected of an emcloyee is to have an unblemished record. That is the m nimum expected to ensure a clean and efricient adminisl,ration and to protect the public interest. An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. I 5 5N,l W.P.No.38873 2022 In Iight oF the above discussions, the case of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and he needs to be kept out to restore the image of public services. Hence, the request oF Sri.K.Srihari for reinstatement cannot be considered keeping in view of his past record of grave misconduct and act of unbecoming of a Government Servant. " B) The re evant oortion of the verdict dated

17.12.1999 passed in S.C.No.241 ot L997 before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judqe, Naqar Kurnool, is extracted hereunder: "In the result, the Court is do and hereby found the accused not guilty U/s. 376 IPC and the court acquits him Uis 235(1) Cr.P.C, for the offence Uls 376 IPC. The accused found guilty for the offence U/s 366 IPC and the court convicts him u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 366 IPC and the court convicts him U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only). In default the accused shall undergo R.L for (3) months. The remand period shall be set off u/s.428 Cr.P.C. out of the substantive sentence. M.O.Nos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over." C) The relevant Dortion of the unnumb ered oaras of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resDond e nt No.3 is extra hereunder: "It is submitted that, Rule 9 (x) of APCCA Rules, 1991 reads as under: 6 SN,I W.P.No.38873 2022 "Dismissal from service which ordinarily be a disqualification for employment under the Government", sha ll r'uture Ir is submitted that, FR.52 reads as undet: "The pay and allowances of a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service cease from the date or such dismissal or remova 1. " 1r is submitted that, the Proviso to F.R.5z-A (3) reads as under: "Provided that back wages to suspended/ dismissed employee cannot be paid as a matter of course in cases where the employee hacl been acquitted by the courts on benefit of doubt. In the present case, the Hon'ble High (.1)urt in CRC No.1933 of 2006, by order Dated.0B.0B.20 1.6 has ordered that, "13. For the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioner accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 366-IPC, and that the observation of the lower appellate Court that the conviction oi' the petitioner-accused for the offence under section 366-A I PC is based on the evidence is not sustainable.' It is submitted that, either of the Court orders, the Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar is not the R espondent/Pa rty. Further with regard to the Re-instatenrent of the Petitioner/a pplicant into service, there are no orders from the court to re-instatement into :;arvice. The cjismissal of the petitioner is not set aside t)y any Court. ]t is submitted that, in pursuance of the conviction orders of the Hon'ble Courts, and also basinq on the Departmental proceedings were conten plated against the applicant under CCA Rules and during the Departmental inquiry charges are proved against the applicant and hence was dismissed. I 1 SN,J W.P.No.38873 2022 It is submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court orders in Criminal Revision Case No.1933 of 2006, by order dated.08.08.2016 are helpful to the applicant from further imprisonment or punishment. Whereas, in a Departmental Proceedings, once action initiated cannot be revived or restored. It is submitted that, Rule 9 (x) of APCCA Rules, 1991 reads as under: - "Dismissal from service which ordinarily be a disq ualification for employment under the Government". sha ll future The considered. request of the applicant may not be Hence the contention of the petitioner is false and allegations are denied. It is submitted that, the submitted representation dated 23.O1.2017 & 17.01.2018 requesting case and reinstafe him into service. petitioner has 19.09.2016, to examine his . It is submitted that, the representations of the petitioners have been examined and a report in the matter was submitted to the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, TS, Hyderabad vide this office Re.No.A2l1641/2016. Dated. 11.10.2016, 24.O5.2078 & 27.09.2018 for orders. it is submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court of for state of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh in LA No. 1 of 2018 in WP.No.31696/2018 by order dated. 06.09.2018 has made the following order. "Pending disposal of writ petition, the Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise is directed to consider the representations of petitioner dated. 19.O9.2O16, 23.OL.2O17 and 17.O1.2O16 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order''' Hence in compliance to the above orders of the Hon'ble Court, the Commissioner of Prohibition & 8 sN,l w.P. No.38873 2022 Excise, TS, Hyderabad has examined the matl.(tr disposed Cr. No.59 3Ol20|6/CPE/82, Dated. 11.12.2018 uith following order: representation s "In the lights of the above discussions the case of the petitioner does not deservo any leniency and he needs to be kept out to rr.store the image of public services. Hence the request of Sri K.Srihari for reinstatement cannot be considered in view of his past record of grave misconduct and act of unbecoming of a Government Servant,"

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of thc petitioner submits that the very initiation oF disciplinary :roceedings against the petitioner was based on a cri'1inal case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.67 of 1996 of PS Kollapirr under Sections 366 and 376 of thr: IPC. The Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagar l(urnool, S.C. No. 241 of 1997, vide order dated 17.12.19')9 in P.R.C No.50 of I9!)6 arising out of the said crime, convicted the petitioner under Section 235(2) of the Crimina Procedure Code and sentenced the petitioner to under(l r rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a r ne of Rs. 5,000/-. and in default, to undergo furthe' rigorous imprisonmeni for three months. Subsequently, based on the conviction order of the Court of the Assistan, Sessions Judge, Nagar- Kurnool in S.C. No. 241 of L997. and upon I SN,J W.P.No.38873 2022 completion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 31.12.2004 issued by the Superintendent, Mahabubnagar District, as the charges were proved against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel aDpearinq on behalf of the Detitioner submits that C iminal Revision Case No. 1933 of 20O6 aqainst the iudqment in Crl.A.No.2O5 of 1999 dated 10.11.2006 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions ludoe, oreferred bv the petitioner, was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated Oa.O8.2O16, and the relevantD ara oraoh s i.e.. oaraqraDh Nos.g and 1 4 of the said iudoment, are extracted hereunder: "9. Insofar as the offence under Section 366 lPC is concerned, Section 366 runs as follows: "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. shall be punished wath imprisonment of either description For a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, Induces any 10 SN,J W.P.No.38873 2022 woman to go from any place with intent that she may be. or knowing that it is likely that she will be, iorced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall be punishable as aforesaid." For proving the offence under Section 346 IPC, the Prosecution has to prove the following.ingreSients. The essential ingredients of Section 366 IPC are: (a) A person kidnaps or abducts any woman. (b) The act is done (i) wi:h intent that she may be compelled to marry any person aqainst her will, or (ii) knowing it to be likely that she will be so conr:elled, (iii) in order that she may be forced or seduced tc illicit intercourse, or (iv) knowing it to be likely that she will be so forced or seduced. The main ingredients of Section 366 IPC are that the act of kidnap or abduction must have been done with an ,ntention to compel the victim to marry against her will or to compel to illicit intercourse. The ingredients of Section 366 IPC would not attract to the present facts of the case. It is not the case of the victim that the petitloner compelled her or seduced ler for marriage, whereas it is her evidence that she intended to marry the petitioner and she compelled the petitioner to marry her as they have sexual relationship. l l l 11, 5N,J W.P.No.38873 2022

10. On the entire readtng of the evidence, it is clear that the petitioner wants to marry the victim and there was also a proposal by the familles and the said proposal was rejected by the family of the victim. But the victim continued her relationship with the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to establish its case for the offence under Section 366 IPC against the petitioner.

11. it is unfortunate to note that even though the petitioner filed the appeal against the convictron under Section 366 IPC and even though there is no charge for the offence under Section 366-4 IPC, the Iower appellate Court wrongly observed that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 366-A IPC is based on the evidence..

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of remanding the matter for appreciation of the evidence aFresh by the lower appellate Court, this Court proceeded to decide the issue on the evidence available on record.

13. For the above said reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitione r-accu sed beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 366 IPC, and that the observation of the lower appellate Court that the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 366-4 IPC is based on the evidence is not s usta ina ble. .,"7

1.) SN,J W. P.tio.38873 2022

14. in the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court agairst the petitioner-accused in Crl.A.No.205 of 1999 vide judqment dated 10.11.2006. The Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that. in view of the Fact that Criminal Revision Case No. 1933 cf 2006 was allowed, setting aside thc conviction and sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petiti,lner/accused in Crl.A. No.2O5 of 1999 by judgment dated 10.11.2006 by clearly observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner./accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence unCer Section 366 of IPC, and further observed that the findinq of the lower appellate Court regarding the commissi()n of the offence under Section 3664 cf IPC was not sustainable based on the evidence and since the petitioner subrnitted a request for reinstaternent into service, enclosing a copy oF the High Court's judgment dated 08.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision Case No 1933 of 2006. However, since the petitioner's r(:quest For 13 SN,] W.P.No.38873 2022 reinstatement was rejected vide the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 11.L2.2078, stating that the fact remained that the petitioner was involved in an act of moral turpitude and act unbecoming of a Government servant without considering and duly examining the verdict in favour of the petitioner, dated 08.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision Case No.1933 of 2006 in its totality.

8. The observations of the Aoex Court and Division Bench of this Court in few iudqments considerinq sustainabilitv of punishment imposed on employee concerned in case of Deoartmental oroceedinqs and criminal Droceedinqs beinq based on sa e set of facts m are extracted hereunder:- A) The Apex Court, in the iudqment of "G.M. Tank vi. State of Guiarat & Ors.," reoorted in (2OO5) 5 SCC 446 dated 1O. os.2()()5 held that if the ch aro es tn th e disciolinarv oroceedinqs are identical to those in the a and the em en hon acquitted in the criminal case, then continuinq with the disciDlinarv Droceedinos on the same charqes would not be iustified and the relevant DaraoraDh 1,4 SN.J W-P.IJo.38873 2022 Nos,3O an-d_ 31 of the said order are--extracted hereund6ll c f e the cha r eb

30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on the dep artnrental tacts and on law. In this case, inal case are Lrased on Droceedinos and the crr t de ntical a n d similar se of facts a nal the r:haroe in a departmental case a o a inst the aDoel arrt and h 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 Iaunched 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 mentloned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one a.ld the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The lnvestigating OFficer Mr V. B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the crimina case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant oy its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed that the iudicial Dronounce ent was made after a reqular trial and on h contest. Under 1:hese circumstances, it would be uniust and unfai. and rather ooDressive to all the findinqs recorded in the deDartmental roceedinqs to sta n d. I I I I j 15 SN,J W.P.No.38873 202 2

31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there beinq 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 instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul AnthonY case r(1999) 3 SCC 679 t L999 SCC fL&S ) 81O1 will apply. We. therefore. hold that t e aDDeal filed bv the aDDellant deserves to be allowed." B) The Apex Court, in the iudqment dated O4.12.2O23 reoorted in (2024) 1 SCC 175 in "Ramlal Vs, State of Raiasthan and others", in oarticular, paraoraph Nos.28 and 29 observed as under:

28. Exoressions Iike "benefit of doubt" and "honourablv acouitted", used in judoments are not to be understood as maqic incantations, A court of Iaw will not be carried awav by the mere use of such terminoloqy, 1n the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original mark sheet carries the date of birth as 2t-4-1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acouittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideratio of the Drosecution evid nce and that the prosecution miserablv failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a readinq of the iudoment in its entiretv. The Court in iudicial I 16 SN,] W.P.l'1o.38873 2022 review is obliqed to exa mine the substance of the ud ment and sscd= rm of ex h

29. we are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate l-nat the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "dlsproved" when, after considerlng the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so D t h ta circumstances of the Darticular case, to a(t uoon the supposition that it does not exist. A fac: is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. Ivijayee Singhv. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (cri) 3781 ). rudent man u ht c) The Apex Court, in the iudqmerlt dated

30.03.199 reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 in M.Paul Anthonv Vs, Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. in particular, paraoraBh .llo.34 observed as u "34- There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefror11.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate trat the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer. relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellart. The I 17 sN,l W.P.No.38873 2O22 same witnesses were examined ln the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judacial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings. to stand." D) The Division Bench i udoment of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Venkatapati reoorted in 1999(1) A.P.L.l. 189(HC), in W.A.No.124 ot 1999, dated 04,O2.L999 is extracted hereunder:- " 1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'R.T.C'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the mean while the department initiated departmental proceedings on the following charge "For having involved rn a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-7996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No.30 of 1996 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) by Muthyalareddypalli police station which amounts misconduct under Sec. 29 (xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. " i8 SN,J W.P.N0.38873 2O22

2. The criminal prosecution initiated aga nst the petitione'ultimately ended in acqulttal in S.C.No. 1of 1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated 8-B-1997. The said acquittal has become final. Howevcr, the disciplinary authority in the departmental-enquiry. upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a result, the petitioner filed the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.

3. The learned Sinqle Judge held that l the disciplinary authority was in error in holdirg the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgmenl, of the Court. The petitioner-delinq ue nt was entitled to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition.

4. Challenging the order of the learned single ludge, the R,T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We f ind no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. Wc have already pointed out as to what charge was frarned in the disciplinary enquiry against the petataoner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for the subs:antive act of having caused death of the wife. The charqe was anly tiat oetitianer was involved in a Crimillal case and the said involvemenj: had ra<rrltad under Section 3O2 of the I.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant rs that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife was result of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner the disciplinary authority was justified in acceptirrg the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitioner in frarninrr nf a rrirtrin:l rr s 19 SN,J W.P. No.38873 2022 was onl was relevant in the instant case. The ch r Ifw institutinq of a criminal case aqainst the etitioner. As soon a found to be untenable in Court of law, the very basis of the charqe was knocked out, The charqe should have been qua hed as and when the criminal case ended in acouittal. Involvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in court of Iaw can hardlv amount to any delinsuencv. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold O disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and a criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's cla im. "

9. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee on the basis of a criminal case registered against him are required to be dropped in the event the employee is acquitted of all the charges framed against him in the said criminal ca se { 20 SN,.i W. P. No.38873 2022

10. in the present case, it is admittedly born. on record that the basis for initiation of disciplinary !roceedings against the petitioner was that a criminal casr: had been registered against the petitioner. In view of the fact that the conviction of the petitioner had been set aside this Court opines that the respondents are bound to rec.)nsider the petitioner's request for reinstatement into service, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above),

11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstancos of the case, b) The submissions made by the learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohihition and Excise appearing on Lrehalf of the respond ents, c) The proceedings vide Cr. No.593O/2O16/CPE/82 dated 11.12.2O18 of the respondent \,1o.2- the Conrmissioner of Prohibition and Excise (FAC) 21 5 N,J W.P.No.38873 2022 issued to the petitioner herein ( referred to and extracted above), d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 ( referred to and extracted above), e)The judgments of the various Courts(referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- ORDER WP.No.3B873 of 2022 I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS