Chand Mohammad, who was acquitted after serving the sentence for 5 years, said – I will die with a terrorist label
After spending 5 years in jail as a terrorist, the Bareilly court acquitted Chand Mohammad. In fact, the court found that Chand Mohammad could not read and write, but he was illiterate, taking the maps written against Chand, shown by the Literature Police to the court as evidence. Now the police have dismissed the claims and acquitted them.
The Supreme Court held that an employee who was dismissed from service on the basis of a disciplinary inquiry cannot be reinstated merely because he has been acquitted by a criminal court on similar charges and on the benefit of doubt on facts. .
A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be reinstated in service.”
Case
Phool Singh was appointed as a constable in the Rajasthan Police Service. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, alleging that (1) he had consumed liquor, (2) had committed indecency with a person and demanded a bribe of Rs.100/- from him, (3) shot at people. who were following them.
All three charges against him were proved that he was dismissed from service. An FIR was also registered against him in this regard under Section 392, 307 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act as well as Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
Though the trial court convicted him, the appellate court allowed his appeal and acquitted him, giving him the benefit of doubt.
After being acquitted, he made an application before the authorities for his reinstatement. Since the authorities did not respond favourably, they filed a writ petition. Taking cognizance of the decision of acquittal, the Rajasthan High Court accepted his petition and directed him to be reinstated.
In the appeal filed by the state, the issue was raised that since he has now been acquitted by the criminal court, can he be reinstated in service?
The Bench first noted the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. et al. (1999) 3 SCC 679, which was relied upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
The court also observed that there are a large number of cases where it has been consistently held that the two proceedings, i.e. criminal and departmental, are completely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial, grounds for reinstatement in service. No, when found guilty in departmental proceedings.
