# Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9965 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-tirath-pno-802031471-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51006
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings -
Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings - Effect
- Disciplinary proceedings and criminal
proceedings are distinct and separate and
they do not bar each other. In case an
employee is punished in departmental
proceedings, it would have no bearing
upon the criminal trial even if the
allegations are the same and, vis-à-vis, in
case an employee is acquitted in the
criminal case, it would not have any
bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.
Each proceeding proceeds on the evidence
and
material
adduced
before
the
respective authorities. Mere acquittal in
the criminal case will not diminish, reduce,
or extinguish the punishment granted in a
disciplinary proceeding. (Para 10)
B. Complaint was made by the petitioner's
wife alleging that he had married again
during the lifetime of his first wife. On her
complaint, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against wherein the charge of
bigamy was found proved and, by means
of order dated 18.01.2010, the petitioner
11 All. Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
29
was punished by reverting him to the
lowest pay scale for a period of three
years. Petitioner never challenged the
order dated 18.01.2010 and subsequently
superannuated
on
28.02.2018.
With
regard to the allegations of bigamy, an
F.I.R. was also lodged by his wife, in
which case the petitioner was acquitted.
On the strength of the acquittal order, the
petitioner prayed for a direction to pay
arrears for the period 2010 to 2013 on
account of deductions made from his
salary pursuant to the punishment order.
Held - Deductions made in pursuance of a
valid punishment order cannot be set
aside merely because of the fortuitous
circumstance that on similar allegations
the petitioner has been acquitted on
criminal charges.(Para 9)
Petition dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public records without resorting to the
personal knowledge of the person making
such a complaint. In the present case, a
perusal of the allegations levelled in the
impugned order of suspension it has
abundantly clear that matters pertaining to
completion of government work and
verifying bills for payment are in domain of
public documents and these charges can be
verified from public records and merely
because a complaint is not supported by an
affidavit would not aid the petitioner in
preventing the inquiry proceedings against
him.

18. This Court is also of the
considered view that in case the allegations
are preceded by a preliminary inquiry then
the complaint itself loses its relevance as the
decision making authority proceeds further
on the basis of preliminary inquiry report. In
case, in the preliminary inquiry report, the
allegations
are
found
to
be
correct,
recommendation is made for a regular
disciplinary proceeding against a person
whose name has surfaced to be involved in
the preliminary inquiry. In such a situation, it
cannot be said that the inquiry would be
conducted on the basis of an anonymous
complaint which is not supported by an
affidavit. Therefore, the status of complaint is
merely an information on the basis of which a
preliminary inquiry is conducted and further
proceedings are conducted based on the
recommendations of the preliminary inquiry
report. Accordingly, this Court does not agree
with the arguments raised by learned counsel
of the petitioner that the inquiry proceedings
should be set aside merely on account of the
fact that the complaint in the present case is
not supported by an affidavit.

19. In light of the above, this Court
does not find any merit in the contentions
and the grounds raised by the petitioner.
The writ petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 28
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 9965 of 2024

Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A. Civil Law - Service Law - Disciplinary
Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings -
Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings - Effect
- Disciplinary proceedings and criminal
proceedings are distinct and separate and
they do not bar each other. In case an
employee is punished in departmental
proceedings, it would have no bearing
upon the criminal trial even if the
allegations are the same and, vis-à-vis, in
case an employee is acquitted in the
criminal case, it would not have any
bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.
Each proceeding proceeds on the evidence
and
material
adduced
before
the
respective authorities. Mere acquittal in
the criminal case will not diminish, reduce,
or extinguish the punishment granted in a
disciplinary proceeding. (Para 10)
B. Complaint was made by the petitioner's
wife alleging that he had married again
during the lifetime of his first wife. On her
complaint, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against wherein the charge of
bigamy was found proved and, by means
of order dated 18.01.2010, the petitioner
11 All. Ram Tirath Pno. 802031471 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
29
was punished by reverting him to the
lowest pay scale for a period of three
years. Petitioner never challenged the
order dated 18.01.2010 and subsequently
superannuated
on
28.02.2018.
With
regard to the allegations of bigamy, an
F.I.R. was also lodged by his wife, in
which case the petitioner was acquitted.
On the strength of the acquittal order, the
petitioner prayed for a direction to pay
arrears for the period 2010 to 2013 on
account of deductions made from his
salary pursuant to the punishment order.
Held - Deductions made in pursuance of a
valid punishment order cannot be set
aside merely because of the fortuitous
circumstance that on similar allegations
the petitioner has been acquitted on
criminal charges.(Para 9)
Petition dismissed. (E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for following
prayer:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the opposite parties to provide his deducted
amount / arrears for the period of 2010 to
2013 in favour of the petitioner as early as
possible, in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the opposite party No. 3 to decide the
representation
dated
16.09.2024as
contained in Annexure No. 4 as early as
possible within stipulated time, in the
interest of justice.

iii, Issue any other writ order or
direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case."

3. It has been submitted that during his
service sometime in 2009, an application
was made by his wife stating that the
petitioner has married again during life of
his first wife which is a misconduct.
Inquiry was conducted and petitioner was
given a show cause notice on 23.12.2009.
The petitioner duly replied to the said show
cause notice on 08.01.2010 and finding his
reply to be evasive, the same was rejected
and by means of order dated 18.01.2010 the
petitioner was punished by reverting him to
the lowest of pay scale for 3 years.

4. The petitioner never challenged the
order dated 18.01.2010 and has subsequent
superannuated from service on 28.02.2018
from the post of Head Constable. He has
further submitted that with regard to the
allegations of bigamy a first information
report was lodged by his wife being Case
Crime No. 4339 of 2009 under Section 494,
498-A I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali
Nagar, District - Sultanpur. In the said case,
the charges were framed and the petitioner
was tried but during trial the existence of
second marriage could not be established
and
accordingly,
the
petitioner
was
acquitted by means of judgment dated
02.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sultanpur.

5. Merely on the strength of the
acquittal order, the petitioner submits that
he would now be entitled to the entire
deductions made in pursuance of the
punishment order dated 18.01.2010 and
accordingly a prayer has been made in the
present writ petition for a direction to the
respondents to pay the arrears for the
period 2010 to 2013 for the deduction made
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from his salary in pursuance of punishment
order.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has opposed the writ petition.
He has submitted that the order of
punishment dated 18.01.2010 was never
assailed by the petitioner before any forum
and has consequently attained finality. He
further submits that the deductions, if any,
made only as per the punishment order
dated 18.01.2010 and during subsistence of
the punishment order the prayer as made by
the petitioner in the present writ petition
cannot be granted. He submits that merely
because the petitioner has been acquitted in
a criminal case would have no consequence
of the punishment order passed in a
disciplinary proceedings.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

8. The facts of the present case are not
disputed inasmuch as on a complaint made
by the wife of the petitioner, disciplinary
proceedings was initiated against him for
misconduct of bigamy as well as first
information report was lodged in Case
Crime No. 4339 of 2009 under Section 494,
498-A I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali
Nagar, District - Sultanpur, the disciplinary
proceedings concluded by passing of the
punishment
order
dated
18.01.2010
wherein the charges levelled against the
petitioner of bigamy stood proved and he
was reverted for the three years to the
lowest of the pay scale.

9.
The
petitioner
served
in
the
department 8 years after the order of
punishment
and
superannuated
on
28.02.2018 from the post of Head Constable.
During
his
service
period,
he
never
challenged the order of punishment dated
18.01.2018 before any authority or forum and
accordingly, the said order became final.

10. On the other hand in the criminal
proceedings, the charges levelled against the
petitioner could not be proved and therefore
he was acquitted by the trial court by means
of judgment and order dated 02.08.2024
passed
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Sultanpur. It is on the order of acquittal that
he has filed the present writ petition seeking a
direction that deductions made in pursuance
of punishment order dated 18.01.2010 may
be restored.

9. Needless to say that the validity of
the punishment order dated 18.01.2010
remain unquestioned and accordingly had
attained finality. The said order was legal
and valid and in case the petitioner had any
grievance against the order of punishment, it
was open for him to challenge the same in
an appeal or before this Court in a writ
petition but the petitioner never challenged
the same. The deductions made in pursuance
of valid order of punishment cannot be set
aside merely because of the fortuitous
circumstance that on similar allegations, the
petitioner has been acquitted on criminal
charges.

10. Both the proceedings, namely,
disciplinary proceedings and the criminal
proceedings are distinct and separate and
they do not bar each other. In case the
petitioner was punished in departmental
proceedings, it would have no bearing upon
the criminal trial even if allegations are
same and vis-a-vis in case the petitioner is
acquitted in the criminal case would not
have any bearing on a disciplinary
proceedings and each proceeding proceeds
on the evidences and materials adduced
before
the
authorities
in
the
said
proceedings.
11 All. Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31

11. In light of the above, this Court is
of the considered view that mere acquittal
in the criminal case will not diminish,
reduce and extinguish the punishment
granted in a disciplinary proceedings and
accordingly no benefit of the acquittal
order can be given to the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceedings specially after
they have been concluded with award of
punishment.

12. In light of the above, this Court
does not find any merits in the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is bereft of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 10700 of 2024

Amit Yadav Head Constable 112622578
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Syed
Anzar
Husain,
Ashutosh
Kumar
Srivastava, Ram Krishan Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings - Uttar Pradesh Police Officer
of Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14 - Whether
during the pendency of the criminal
proceedings,
the
departmental
proceedings
should
be
stayed
?
-
Departmental as well as criminal, both the
proceedings can go simultaneously as
there is no bar. The question as to
whether during the pendency of the
criminal proceedings, the departmental
proceedings should be stayed depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. One of the main consideration for
staying of the departmental proceedings
during the pendency of the criminal trial is
to see that the defence of the delinquent
Government Servant is not prejudiced in
the criminal trial. Court must record a
finding that non grant of stay on a
departmental proceedings would not only
prejudice the delinquent officer, that the
matter also involves complicated question
of law (Para 15, 16)

B. Civil Law - Departmental Disciplinary
Proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial - In the instant case charges
levelled
in
departmental
inquiry
and
criminal case, emanate from the common
incident but the charges in both the
proceedings are different. Charges in
departmental
proceedings
relate
to
violation of the conduct rules and the
departmental rules while in the criminal
case charge relates to the offence under
various sections of the I.P.C. and of the
Arms Act. Though the evidence may be
common but the legal principles under
charges
are
entirely
different.
Also
petitioner submitted his reply on merits he
would be deemed to have subjugated
himself to the disciplinary authority. It
cannot be said that his defence can be
prejudiced during the criminal trial. No
infirmity in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings
simultaneously
with
the
criminal trial. (Para 13, 16)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Uttar Pradesh & ors. VsBabu Ram Upadhya,
AIR 1961 SC 751

2. Uttar Pradesh & ors. VsBabu Ram Upadhya,
AIR 1961 SC 751

3.Ajeet Kumar Nag Vs G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil
Corporation, (2005) 8 JT 425