Arjun Singh Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
rajasthan civil services (classification,control and appeal) rules, 1958 - rule 16--departmental enquiry--during pendency of inquiry, petitioner admitted his guilt and requested the authorities to take lenient view--thus, instead of removal from service lesser punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed--keeping in view the nature of charges which has already been established and that already lenient view is taken--no interference called for.;writ petition dismissed in limine - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - it was observed by the apex court that the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings can continue independently since there is a consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that proceedings where departmental enquiry is pending against the delinquent and also the proceedings in a criminal case which are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings in common, the departmental proceedings may continue.madan, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. in view of the gravity of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under rule 16 of cca rules by imposing the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect.3. it is pertinent to mention here that on 3.4.2000, during the pendency of enquiry, the petitioner had admitted his guilt and requested the authorities to take lenient view in the matter as regards the quantum of punishment to be imposed.4. it is under the above circumstances that instead of imposing the penalty of removal from service, lesser punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed which in my view is not open to challenge.5. at this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been acquitted of criminal charges for the offence under section 353, 504 ipc by the learned chief judicial magistrate, bharatpur, vide order dt. 31.7.1998. in this regard, the decision of the apex court in the matter of m. paul anthony v. bharat gold mines ltd. and anr. (1), has been cited, wherein similar controversy had arisen before the apex court. it was observed by the apex court that the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings can continue independently since there is a consensus of judicial opinion on a basic principle that proceedings where departmental enquiry is pending against the delinquent and also the proceedings in a criminal case which are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings in common, the departmental proceedings may continue. basis for this proposition is that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. in departmental proceedings factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case, while in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.6. learned counsel has argued that a lenient view be taken in the matter as regards the penalty imposed on the delinquent. however, since a lenient view has already been taken in the matter by imposing lesser penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, in my view, no interference is called for looking to the gravity of charge against the delinquent which stands established on the basis of enquiry report.7. another argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned charge sheet dated 13.1.97 (ann.5) is that earlier also the petitioner was charge sheeted by the department and enquiry was initiated against him under rule 16 of the cca rules way back as on 20th june, 1997. thereafter, on the basis of same charges, no punishment was imposed on the petitioner as he had participated in the enquiry.8. in my view, the department is not precluded from conducting the enquiry on the basis of the same charge sheet which was earlier served on the petitioner vide annexure-2, since the enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner though only the charge-sheet was issued, whereas on 13.1.97 not only charge sheet was issued, but also enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and participation and thereafter punishment was imposed. in my view, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thus devoid of any substance.9. as regards, natural justice, keeping in view the nature of the charges, which have already been established, no interference is called for in the impugned order. it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had also availed the remedy of appeal against the order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 3.4.2000 concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority.10. the charge against the petitioner is that he had abused dr. omkar narayan singh and shri maghlesh kumar by indulging in improper behaviour against them as on 17.12.1996. dr. omkar singh was appointed as enquiry officer by the department. the arguments of learned counsel is also not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner himself accepted his guilty and rather expressed that a lenient view be taken in the matter, which is evident from the order dated 3.4.2000 (ann.4)11. as a result of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.