Anand Jataw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:48949

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3009 of 2023

¶6

Anand Jataw S/o Late Shri Ramdulare Jataw Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post - Bhairamgarh, P.S. And Tahsil - Bhairamgarh, District - Beejapur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Director General Of Police (Dgp), Police Head Quarter (Phq), Sector-19, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Inspector General Of Police (Igp), O/o Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Lal Bagh, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶12

Superintendent Of Police (Sp), O/o Superintendent Of Police, Sukma District - Sukma Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

1 1.12.2024

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.

¶20

2

¶21

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the termination order of petitioner dated 11.06.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3 IGP, Bastar Range (Annexure P/1).

¶22

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned Appellate Order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 DGP, PHQ, Raipur (Annexure P/4).

¶23

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned review order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 DGP, PHQ, Raipur (Annexure P/8).

¶24

10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reinstate the service of petitioner on the post of ASI and also direct the Respondent authority to pay full salary, benefit of increment and other consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of termination of petitioner dated 11.06.2020 to the date of reinstatement in service of petitioner.

¶25

10.6 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.”

¶26

Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of ASI under the office of respondent No.4/ SP, Sukma District - Sukma Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that while the petitioner was posted at that place, an FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Section 381 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 8(3) of C.G. Special Public Security Act, 2005 was registered against the petitioner on 17.11.2020. The petitioner was arrested and he remained in jail for a considerable period. An order of dismissal from services was passed by respondent No.3 on 11.06.2020. He would further contend that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma, District Sukma acquitted the petitioner from charges vide judgment dated 13.04.2021. He would state that the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal

¶27

3

¶28

before respondent No.2 along with the judgment passed by the Criminal Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2021. He would also state that according to the provisions of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, 1861 (for short ‘the Police Regulation 241’), after clean acquittal, the petitioner, who was ASI/constable, is entitled to reinstatement in the service. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.83/2016 wherein it is held that “Police Personal is entitled to be reinstated as a matter of right by Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations on clean acquittal”. He would submit that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.), and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have reinstated the petitioner in service by virtue of the Police Regulation 241.

¶29

On the other hand, Mr. Tamboli, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. Mr. Tamboli would submit that though the petitioner has been acquitted, it is nowhere stated that his acquittal was honorable. He would further contend that the appropriate authority has already decided the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. He would further submit that if the acquittal of the petitioner is not honourable, he would not get the benefit of the Police Regulation 241. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Admittedly, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 381 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act

¶32

4

¶33

and Section 8(3) of C.G. Special Public Security Act, 2005 on 17.11.2020. The petitioner was arrested by the police, thereafter the article of charge was issued and without conducting any departmental enquiry, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on the petitioner by respondent No.3 vide order dated 11.06.2020. A departmental appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by resopndent No. 2. The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma, District, Sukma vide judgment dated 13.04.2021.

¶34

A perusal of the judgment would show that the petitioner has been given a clean acquittal by the concerned Court.

¶35

The petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy appeal before respondent No.2 along with the judgment of acquittal but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2021 by respondent No.2.

¶36

Police Regulation 241 reads as under:-

¶37

“241. Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated: He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General."

¶38

From a bare reading of Police Regulation 241, it is quite vivid that if a police personal has been given a clean acquittal by the competent Criminal Court, he would be entitled to reinstatement in the services.

¶39

10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 8,9,18 & 20 held as under:-

¶40

5

¶41

“8. In order to consider the plea as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 241 of the said Regulations which states as under: -

¶42

Cases of acquittal When a police officer has been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he must as a rule be to reinstated: He may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constitutes the sole ground of punishment. If, however the acquittal, whether in the court of original jurisdiction or of appeal was based on technical grounds. Or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector-General."

¶43

A careful perusal of Regulation 241 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations would show that it is an exception to the rule applicable to the police force providing that once an employee has been acquitted by the criminal court, as a matter of right, he should be reinstated in service and he may not be punished departmentally when the offence for which he was tried constituted the sole ground of punishment. However, Regulation 241 also carves out a caveat that if the order of acquittal is based on technical grounds or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of his conduct, after obtaining the sanction of the Inspector General.

¶44

18.In view of the finding recorded herein-above, charges in criminal trial and departmental proceeding are substantially one and same. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, that charges framed against the petitioner i.e. based on departmental proceeding and criminal trial are different, is hereby rejected.

¶45

20.Accordingly, the order dated 13-4-2015 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 9-12-2015 passed by the appellate authority, both, are set aside and consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 7-41995 terminating the services of the petitioner, is also hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. However, the issue of back-wages will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to make submission that he is entitled for full back-wages.”

¶46

11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the provision of Police

¶47

6

¶48

Regulation 241 and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Sahu (supra) , in the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 2 committed an error of law in rejecting the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner after acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, the Termination order dated 11.06.2020 is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application claiming therein arrears of salary in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules before the competent authority and the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent extracted herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

¶50

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶51

$iddhant

Anand Jataw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Jataw v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bedram Tandekar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishori Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kiran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R. a. Shrivastava @ Ram Abhilash Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh