The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2094 of 2015 1. 2. 1. 2. Priti Seema Tigga Neel Prabha Tigga The State of Jharkhand Vs. … Petitioners The Inspector General of Prisons, Government of Jharkhand, T.A. Division, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West … Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Singh, AC to SC-III ----------- 07/ 28.03.2023 During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner has died and substituted by his legal heirs vide order dated 14.10.2019. 2. The original petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.408 dated 27.02.2012, whereby and whereunder, the services of original petitioner has been terminated on the ground that while he was on duty, some prisoners escaped from the Jail. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay all the legal dues/retiral benefits as he was acquitted by a competent Court of law vide order dated 30.01.2015. 3. The case of the original petitioner lies in a narrow compass that on 16.01.2011, when the petitioner was working as Warden in the District Jail at about 12:00 in the mid night and 3:00 am, three notorious criminals escaped from the Jail. Accordingly, a criminal case was instituted and on the basis of criminal case, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner on 22.03.2011. In the departmental proceeding, after following the procedures, the petitioner was dismissed/terminated from service vide impugned order dated 27.02.2012. Later on, in the criminal proceeding, he was acquitted from the charges vide order /Judgment dated 30.01.2015 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in S.T. No.115/2011. Pursuant to the acquittal, the original petitioner represented before the respondents for re-consideration of his case, but no heed was paid. Hence, the original petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 2 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that very basis for dismissal from the service of the original petitioner was the criminal case. Since the departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of criminal case and as such, the charges in departmental proceeding as well as criminal case are identical in nature. He further submits that since the original petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the order of dismissal/termination passed in completion of departmental proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside and as such suffice, it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to take a fresh decision in view of the acquittal of the original petitioner in criminal case as the charges were identical in criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding. He further submits that since the original petitioner has already died and his legal heirs were substituted, a sympathetic consideration may be shown by the respondents, so that legal heirs enjoy fruits of retiral benefits/death-cum-retiral benefits. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that in no way, the petitioners are entitled for any benefits. The Departmental Proceeding and Criminal Proceeding are based on different grounds as in the criminal proceeding different yardstick have been adopted and in the departmental proceeding, charges are different. Even if assuming that departmental proceeding was based on criminal charges and original petitioner has been acquitted by competent Court, but from the order of acquittal, it appears that original petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, which cannot be said to Hon’ble acquittal and as such, petitioners are not entitled for any benefit. However, he very fairly submits that the respondents will take a fresh decision, in accordance with law, if the petitioners prefer a fresh representation before the respondents. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly, original petitioner was dismissed/terminated from the services on the basis of departmental proceeding, which is based on the criminal proceeding. The charges in the criminal case and that in the departmental proceeding were identical and that ought to have been considered by the respondents. Similar issue fell for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and in 3 case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, wherein, it has been held that ‘if the charges are identical in nature and delinquent is acquitted in the criminal case, then consideration should have been shown by the respondents. 7. In in the instant case, even if assuming that charges are same and similar and original petitioner has not been acquitted honorably, but no order has been passed by the respondents on the representation of original petitioner after acquittal. It was incumbent upon the respondents to pass a fresh order on the pending representation of original petitioner, taking into consideration the order of acquittal. Since the original petitioner has already died and his daughters are representing him, a sympathetic consideration has to be shown, although sympathy has no role to play in law, but since no order has been passed by the respondents themselves on the pending representation, the respondent concerned is directed to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the acquittal of the original petitioner in criminal case, if petitioners file a fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which they are relying on along with a copy of this order before the respondent concerned, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation of the petitioners shall be
Decision
disposed of with reasoned order, within a further period of eight weeks. 8. Needless to say that if the petitioners are entitled for any benefits, same shall be extended to them, within a further period of two weeks. If any adverse order is passed, the same shall also be communicated to them, within the aforesaid period. 9. of. punit/- With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)