Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Rai, was an Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was dismissed from service on 18 February 2005 after a full-fledged departmental enquiry. The dismissal order was challenged in a departmental appeal and revision, both of which were confirmed. He then filed Writ Petition No. 297 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 7 November 2006. A Review Petition No. 25 of 2007 was also dismissed on 11 December 2007. The petitioner further approached the Supreme Court in SLP No. 6987-6988 of 2009, which was dismissed on 7 July 2009. At that time, criminal proceedings against the petitioner were pending. On 18 June 2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case. Based on this acquittal, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking reinstatement in service. The respondents rejected the representation by communication dated 11 October 2012. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that rejection. The Court held that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent and operate in different fields. The dismissal order had attained finality after being upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The subsequent acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement after Acquittal - Departmental Enquiry vs Criminal Proceedings - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - The petitioner, dismissed after a full-fledged departmental enquiry, sought reinstatement based on his acquittal in a criminal case. The Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent and operate in different fields; acquittal does not automatically entitle reinstatement. The dismissal order had attained finality after being upheld up to the Supreme Court. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry is entitled to reinstatement solely on the basis of his subsequent acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same set of facts
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned communication dated 11/10/2012 rejecting the petitioner's representation for reinstatement is upheld.
Law Points
- Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent
- acquittal in criminal case does not automatically entitle reinstatement
- dismissal order confirmed after full-fledged enquiry and upheld up to Supreme Court cannot be reopened
Case Details
Writ Petition No.12111 of 2012
Anoop V. Mohta, G.S. Kulkarni
Mr. A. K. Jalisatgi a/w Mr. Asif J. Patel for the petitioner, Mr. Y. S. Bhate a/w Mr. N. R. Prajapati for UOI
Union of India, The Director General Central Industrial Security Force, The Inspector General (AirPort Sector), The Dy. Inspector General (West Zone)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of representation for reinstatement after acquittal in criminal case
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reinstatement in service based on acquittal in criminal case
Filing Reason
Rejection of representation for reinstatement by respondents
Previous Decisions
Dismissal order dated 18/2/2005 confirmed in departmental appeal and revision; Writ Petition No.297/2005 dismissed on 7/11/2006; Review Petition No.25/2007 dismissed on 11/12/2007; SLP No.6987-6988/2009 dismissed on 7/7/2009
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement solely on the basis of acquittal in criminal case after dismissal order has attained finality
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that acquittal in criminal case entitles him to reinstatement
Respondents rejected representation on the ground that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent
Ratio Decidendi
Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent and operate in different fields. Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement when the dismissal order has been upheld in departmental proceedings and has attained finality.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner who was in the service of the Central Industrial Security Force has filed the present petition challenging the communication dated 11/10/2012 by which representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement in service, in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, has been rejected by the respondents.
Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service after a full fledged departmental enquiry by an order dated 18/2/2005.
The issue on the departmental proceedings accordingly attained finality however at that time the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were pending.
Procedural History
Petitioner dismissed on 18/2/2005 after departmental enquiry. Appeal and revision confirmed dismissal. Writ Petition No.297/2005 dismissed on 7/11/2006. Review Petition No.25/2007 dismissed on 11/12/2007. SLP No.6987-6988/2009 dismissed on 7/7/2009. Acquitted in criminal case on 18/6/2012. Representation for reinstatement rejected on 11/10/2012. Present writ petition filed challenging rejection.
Acts & Sections
- Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968:
