Employee Was Acquitted After Full Consideration Of Prosecution Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Termination
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the Petition by an Employee challenging his termination after he was arrested for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the termination Order against a Government employee while stating that he was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Employee (Petitioner) challenging his termination after he was arrested for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. The Court, however, also clarified that the mere acquittal by a criminal Court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement.
A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice K Manmadha Rao held, “It is also noted that both suits which were filed against the petitioner herein were decreed on the basis of pronotes only for recovery of the money transaction but not for the purpose of providing job, and nowhere mentioned in the judgments with regard to the money transaction taken place for the purpose of providing job. Further, a reading of the entire judgment clearly indicates that the petitioner was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence.”
Advocate VR Reddy Kovvuri appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate PSP Suresh Kumar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Principal District Judge had initiated a preliminary inquiry against the Petitioner, which later resulted in departmental proceedings under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the departmental inquiry, recorded that not all charges were proved against the Petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority, after issuing a show cause notice, did not accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed an Order of Termination from service, citing moral turpitude.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court explained, “Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.”
“If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. Further, the Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive,” the Bench clarified.
“Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantation. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding after full consideration of the prosecution evidence. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings…issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside. Further, we direct the petitioner shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy v. High Court Of Judicature Registrar Vigilance Hyd 2 & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO: 3995/2017)
