Chand & Salek Chand Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors  INSC 501 (30 September 1994)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (3) 674 JT 1995 (1) 23 1994 SCALE (4)707
These appeals arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No.1218/88 dated December
12, 1993. The
appellant was promoted from the post of A.S.I. to S.I. but he was confirmed w.e.f.
January 4, 1989 though it was stated .that his case
for promotion had to be considered with effect from October 1, 1982. This claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground
that in 1983, he was charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and he was kept under suspension and he was also
communicated of adverse remarks for the period from June 7, 1980 to March 31,
1981 and that he became eligible to be considered for promotion as S.I. w.e.f.
December 16, 1985. Therefore, his case was considered and he was promoted in 1989.
Counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record relating to the
D.P.C. proceedings- We have perused the proceedings of D.P.C. which would
clearly show that the reasons which prevailed with the DP.C. were the
prosecution under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the
departmental enquiry, against the appellant It is not in dispute that the
proposed departmental enquiry a;so is related to the self same offence under
section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The, judgment acquitting the
appellant of the, charge under section .,(2) became final and it clearly
indicate-,; that it was on merits. Therefore, once the acquittal was on merits
the necessary consequence would be that the delinquent is entitled to
reinstatement as if there is no blot on his service and the, need for the
departmental enquiry is obviated.
settled law that though the delinquent official may get an acquittal on
technical grounds, me authorities are entitled to conduct departmental enquiry
on the self same allegations and take appropriate disciplinary action. But,
here, as stated earlier, the acquittal was on merits. The material on the basis
of which his promotion was denied was the sole ground of the prosecution under
section 5(2) and that ground when did not subsist, the same would not furnish
the basis for DPC to overlook his promotion. We are informed that the
departmental enquiry itself was dropped by the respondents. Under these
circumstances, the very foundation an which the D.P.C. had proceeded is clearly
illegal. The appellant is entitled to the promotion with effect from the date
immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. The appeals are
allowed. No costs.