http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SULEKH CHAND & SALEK CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/09/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (3) 674 JT 1995 (1)    23  1994 SCALE  (4)707

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2.     These  appeals arise from the order  of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1218/88 dated December 12, 1993. The appellant was promoted from the post of A.S.I.  to S.I.  but he was confirmed w.e.f. January 4, 1989 though  it was stated .that his case for promotion had to be considered with  effect from October 1, 1982.  This claim was  resisted by  the  respondents  on the ground that  in  1983,  he  was charged for an offence under section 5(2) of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act and he was kept under suspension  and  he was also communicated of adverse remarks for the period from June  7, 1980 to March 31, 1981 and that he became  eligible to  be considered for promotion as S.I.w.e.f.  December  16, 1985. Therefore, his case was considered and he was promoted in 1989.  Counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the  record  relating to the D.P.C.  proceedings-   We  have perused  the proceedings of D.P.C. which would clearly  show that  the  reasons which prevailed with the DP.C.  were  the prosecution  under section 5(2) of Prevention of  Corruption Act  and the departmental enquiry, against the appellant  It is  not  in dispute that the proposed  departmental  enquiry a;so is related to the self same offence under section  5(2) of   the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act.   The,   judgment acquitting the appellant of the, charge under section  .,(2) became  final  and  it clearly indicate-,; that  it  was  on merits.  Therefore,  once the acquittal was  on  merits  the necessary  consequence  would  be  that  the  delinquent  is entitled  to  reinstatement as if there is no  blot  on  his service  and  the,  need for  the  departmental  enquiry  is obviated. It  is settled law that though the delinquent  official  may get  an acquittal on technical grounds, me  authorities  are entitled  to conduct departmental enquiry on the  self  same allegations  and take appropriate disciplinary action.  But,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

here,  as stated earlier, the acquittal was on  merits.  The material on the basis of which his promotion was denied  was the  sole ground of the prosecution under section  5(2)  and that ground when did not subsist, the same would not furnish the basis for DPC to overlook his promotion. We are informed that  the  departmental enquiry itself was  dropped  by  the respondents.  Under these circumstances, the very foundation an  which the D.P.C. had proceeded is clearly  illegal.  The appellant is entitled to the promotion with effect from  the date  immediate junior was promoted with  all  consequential benefits. The appeals are allowed. No costs. 25