Allowed

Laxmi Dutt v. Union of India and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC2 Jan 2013WPSS/1093/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal order after subsequent criminal acquittal. Court held that criminal court judgment must precede domestic proceedings in same-origin facts. Directed Revisional authority to re-open the issue within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs Revisional authority to reopen the issue within eight weeks after personal hearing to decide if punishment remains warranted in light of acquittal.

Laxmi Dutt Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

WPSS No.1093 of 2004 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

¶2

Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate present for the petitioner.

¶3

Mrs. Farida Siddique, Standing Counsel present for the Central Government.

¶4

Mr. Pingal appears in this matter on behalf of the petitioner on fresh Vakalatnama executed by the petitioner on change being taken. He is permitted to file his vakalatnama in the department in course of tomorrow.

¶5

By this writ petition, the order of dismissal from the services is challenged. The petitioner was appointed as Constable. Gradually, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2002. On the allegations of killing of another constable, the petitioner was proceeded with both domestic proceedings and regular criminal proceedings. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for committing murder of a constable. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned order of dismissal was passed. When the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, the criminal trial was pending. Thereafter, the criminal trial ended with the acquittal of the petitioner. It was found by the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner was not guilty after appreciating evidence. The above judgment has reached its finality as no appeal has been preferred. Therefore, I have also gone through the judgment. It is not uncommon that any government department can initiate parallel

¶6

domestic proceedings. But when both the proceedings owe the same origin of fact, the judgment and order passed by the regular competent court of law has to be given precedence over the domestic proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 has recognized above legal position. Accordingly, I direct the respondents not to treat the impugned order as final one. I direct the Revisional authority taking note of subsequent judgment of acquittal to re-open the issue and decides whether the order of punishment which was passed was and still is warranted or not in the light of the findings of Regular Criminal Court. The decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving personal hearing to the petitioner. In the event, the dismissal order is recalled, the appropriate benefits shall be given to the petitioner.

¶7

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶8

JKJ/Arpan

Laxmi Dutt v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Dutt v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajpal Singh Vs R.M. Uttaranchal Pariwahan Nigam LOHAGHATandANOTHER

Lata Hadala Vs District Education and Ors.

Bhadu Singh Aswal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Brij Mohan Juyal Vs Garhwal Mandal Vikash Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal Vs State and Ors.

Deepak Negi Vs State Bank of India and Ors.