Rajendra Prasad v. Union of India and 2 Others

2025:AHC:141706 Reserved :- 12/08/2025 Delivered :- 20/08/2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11453 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Narain Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anadi Krishna Narayana,Ritu Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Petitioner has challenged an order dated 17.12.2015 whereby he was awarded a punishment of compulsorily retirement with superannuation benefits after a period of 10 years, on a ground that on similar set of facts and evidence, a criminal trial initiated against him was resulted in judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2024.

¶2Sri Ram Narain, learned counsel for petitioner has referred the judgment dated 02.09.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No. 7565/2024.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in the trial, all relevant witnesses i.e. customers of bank, wherein petitioner was employed, have not supported case of prosecution and have declared hostile and he was granted acquittal. For reference, relevant part of judgment of acquittal is quoted below :- "

अत蘭Ɵ उपरोसाቌኚय셄꽷क럙鵠 वि्ቨ 럙鵠ष覾腭क럙鵠 उपरान्तय劣區तथ्यपू覾腭त蘭Ɵ स्प्ቖ

劣區ोजाता劣區푍विकअभियुराज럙鵠न्訪鎆्ቚ सा游斘क럙鵠 विरू䥜䧌आरोविपतअपराሼ१क럙鵠

संबंሼ१म쫛�अभियोजꙊ력क鐍렅तर誽ꖡस럙鵠परीቌኌ1तकराय럙鵠गय럙鵠सा1ीग覾腭सा1ी पी०डब्लू०-1

म劣區럙鵠न्訪鎆कुमारगु्቎ाखातासंख्या-28460100006421, पी०डब्लूए-2

विꙊ력याशा 游斘럙鵠ी खाता संख्या 28460100001296, पी०डब्लू0-4

मीरा 游斘럙鵠ी खाता संख्या-284601000011806, पी०डब्लू०-5

Ꙋ력ीरज मा खाता संख्या-284601000012129, पी०डब्लू०-6

मीरा 游斘럙鵠ी खाता संख्या 28460100003598, पी०डब्लू0-7

मटरूलाल खाता संख्या-2830010001550, पी०डब्लू०-

矚旂कृष्覾腭मो劣區Ꙋ력चौब럙鵠खातासंख्या78460100006652  पी०डब्लूए-9

्ቦ ीमतीकमला游斘럙鵠ीखातासंख्या28460100014004

्ቛ ाराअपꙊ력ीमुख्यपरी1ाम쫛�कथꙊ력विकयागया劣區푍विकउꙊ력क럙鵠 खात셄꽷म쫛�

कोᯉⓚी劣區럙鵠रा-

誽ꖡ럙鵠रीयाሼ१ोखाሼ१ड़ीꙊ력劣區滓計क鐍렅गयी劣區푍䨅寘उपरोसा1ीग覾腭क럙鵠

खात셄꽷म쫛�जोीजमा विꙊ력कासीक鐍렅गयी劣區푍劣區स्यंउꙊ력क럙鵠्ቛ ारा劣區ी

क鐍렅 गयी 劣區푍䨅寘 उपरो सा1ीग覾腭 क럙鵠्ቛ ारा अपꙊ력ी मुख्य परी1ा म쫛� 劣區ी

अभियोजꙊ력कथाꙊ력ककासमथꙊ력Ꙋ력劣區滓計विकयागया劣區푍䨅寘अभियोजꙊ력्ቛ ारा

ऐसाकोᯉⓚकथꙊ력यासाቌኚय्ቚ स्तुतꙊ력劣區滓計विकयागया劣區푍,

जोअभियु

कोउसक럙鵠 विरु䥜䧌आरोविपतअपराሼ१स럙鵠जोडता劣區ो,

क्य셄꽷विकतथ्यक럙鵠

सा1ीग覾腭 Ꙋ력럙鵠 अपꙊ력ी मुख्य परी1ा म쫛� स्प्ቖ कथꙊ력 विकया गया 劣區푍 विक

विप1ी राज럙鵠न्訪鎆्ቛ ारा उꙊ력क럙鵠 खात셄꽷 म쫛� विकसी्ቚ कार क鐍렅 劣區럙鵠रा誽ꖡ럙鵠री या

ሼ१ोखሼ१डीꙊ력विकय럙鵠जाꙊ력럙鵠काकथꙊ력विकया劣區푍䨅寘

आपराቌኌሼ१क विቌኌሼ१ का य劣區 सुस्थाविपत सिस䥜䧌ांत 劣區푍 विक अभियोजꙊ력 को

अपꙊ력ामामलासं游斘럙鵠劣區स럙鵠पर럙鵠सिस䥜䧌करꙊ력ा劣區푍तथाय劣區ीस्थाविपतविቌኌሼ१

劣區푍विकमामलासं游斘럙鵠劣區स럙鵠पर럙鵠साविबतꙊ력विकय럙鵠जाꙊ력럙鵠क鐍렅ቝኌस्थቌኌतम쫛�सं游斘럙鵠劣區

काला अभियुको्ቚ 游斘ाꙊ력विकयाजाय럙鵠गा䨅寘य्ቕविपअभियोजꙊ력游斘स्ता럙鵠ज셄꽷

क鐍렅सत्यताकोअभियुस्ीकारविकया劣區푍,

परन्तुमा䀱䧾游斘स्ता럙鵠ज셄꽷क럙鵠

स्ीकारकरल럙鵠Ꙋ력럙鵠क럙鵠 आሼ१ारपर劣區ीअभियोजꙊ력कथाꙊ력ककोपु्ቖ Ꙋ력劣區滓計

माꙊ력ाजासकता,

जबतकविकमौखिखकसाቌኚयस럙鵠अभियोजꙊ력कथाꙊ력क

क鐍렅पुवि्ቖ Ꙋ력劣區ुᯉⓚ劣區ो䨅寘

उपरो सम्पू覾腭 साቌኚय셄꽷 क럙鵠 वि्ቨ 럙鵠ष覾腭 क럙鵠 उपरान्त म쫛� इस विꙊ력ष्कष पर

प劣區ुंचता 劣區ूं विक अभियोजꙊ력 प1,

अभियु राज럙鵠न्訪鎆्ቚ सा游斘्ቛ ारा

खाताሼ१ारक셄꽷क럙鵠 खात럙鵠म쫛�劣區럙鵠रा誽ꖡ럙鵠री ሼ१ोखाሼ१ड़ीविकय럙鵠जाꙊ력럙鵠क럙鵠 तथ्य셄꽷को

्ቚ स्तुतसाቌኚयस럙鵠सं游斘럙鵠劣區स럙鵠पर럙鵠साविबतकरꙊ력럙鵠म쫛�पू覾腭त蘭Ɵ अस誽ꖡलर劣區ा劣區푍䨅寘

अत蘭Ɵ अभियुराज럙鵠न्訪鎆्ቚ सा游斘कोअन्तगतሼ१ारा-218

ा०游斘ं०संवि劣區ता

क럙鵠 游斘ण्डꙊ력ीयआरोप셄꽷स럙鵠游斘ोष-

" मुविकय럙鵠जाꙊ력럙鵠योग्य劣區ैं䨅寘

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on basis of acquittal, the punishment order is liable to be set aside, since it was based on same set of evidence. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2023) 19 SCC 588.

¶5Per contra, Sri Ashok Trivedi and Ms. Ritudhar, learned advocates for respondents have submitted that not only there is a delay of 10 years in challenging the impugned order but from contents of impugned order, it would be clearly evident that it was decided on preponderance of probabilities and has different set of evidence and witnesses and, therefore, subsequent acquittal would have not effect.

¶6Before dealing with rival submissions, Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1618 wherein a similar issue i.e. "On the facts of the case, what is the effect of the acquittal, ordered by the Appellate Judge in the 4 criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry?" was considered and its relevant paragraphs 11 to 13 are quoted below :- "11. We are also conscious of the fact that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. (See State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram [State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC

(Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] .)

¶12However, 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. 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. Each case will turn on its own facts. (See G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] , State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao [State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 :

(2009)

SCC

(L&S)

489]

and S. Samuthiram [State of T.N. v. S. Samuthiram,

(2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 :

(2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] .) Discussion Validity of the disciplinary proceeding — Question 1

¶13A brief analysis of the facts of the case is essential. The origin of this dispute, which does not inspire confidence at all, is as follows. The appellant's cousin Shravan Lal (PW 4 in the departmental enquiry and PW 6 in the criminal case), deposed as under before the enquiry officer: "Stated on enquiry that about 13 months ago, I was operating engine at well. On that day at about 3.00 p.m., Ramlal after drinking liquor, came at well and switched off the engine. Thereafter, Ramlal abused me and scuffled with me and said that today I will operate the engine and you cannot do anything to me. I have received job by fooling the Government. When I enquired him that how you did that, then, Ramlal told me that I have received job by altering my date of birth as 21-4-1972 in my marksheet, whereas, my date of birth was 21-4-1974. Thereafter I went to school and enquired about this fact, whereupon I came to know that his date of birth was 21-4-1974. Due to this reason, I produced an application before the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer and made one report to the Commandant, 9th Battalion, RAC, Tonk and I also made one report to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and one report to DIG, RAC, Rajasthan, Jaipur…." (emphasis supplied)"

¶7In above background, I have carefully perused judgment of acquittal wherein the material prosecution witnesses i.e. customers have not supported case of prosecution, therefore, offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and order of acquittal was passed, therefore, it is not a case of honourable acquittal. (see Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 ; State of Rajasthan and others vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC 252 ; Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471)

¶8Therefore, the question whether on such set of evidence and witnesses, petitioner was granted acquittal does not survive.

¶9Court also takes note that departmental proceedings were conducted in a fair manner, principles of natural justice were followed and on basis of material evidence, charges i.e. petitioner has debited accounts of customers without explicit mandate and instruction and in withdrawing funds from accounts of bank's customers without mandating his/her signature keeping with specimen of bank records, therefore no error in decision making process is evident.

¶10The only aspect which may favour the petitioner is that no customer was examined during disciplinary proceedings, however, it could not be fatal to entire disciplinary proceedings since established procedure was not followed by petitioner during his working as well as punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits is not shockingly disproportionate.

¶11In aforesaid circumstances, legal position as held in Ram Lal (supra) that it is not a case that acquittal in criminal proceedings was after the full consideration of prosecution evidence and that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges since in present case witnesses have not supported case of prosecution and were declared hostile, therefore, it is not a case that a Court in judicial review can grant redress to petitioner.

¶12Court also takes note of judgment of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra), however, it is distinguishable from facts of present case since it was in regard to initial appointment and suppression of a fact of a criminal case wherein later on an order of acquittal was passed.

¶13In view of above circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- August 20, 2025 N. Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad