SULEKH CHAND AND SALEK CHAND versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 30-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SULEKH CHAND AND SALEK CHAND 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law 
A 
B 
Promotion-f'romotion denied on ground of criminal prosecution and 
departmental enquiry-Acquittal on merit-Departmental enquiry C 
dropped-Candidate entitled to promotion with effect from the date his 
immediate junior was promoted. 
. The appellant was promoted from the post or A.SJ. to S.I. but he 
was confirmed w.e.r. January 4, 1989. The appellant claimed that his case 
for promotion had to be considered w.e.f. October 1, 1982. This claim was D 
resisted on the ground that in 1983, he was charged for an offence u/s 5(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was kept under suspension. 
These appeals had been filed against the order or the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
Held: 1.1. The reasons which prevailed with the D.P.C. were the 
prosecution u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the 
departmental enquiry against the appellant. The proposed departmental F 
enquiry also is related to the self same offence under section 5(2) or the 
Act. The judgment acquitting the appellant of the charge u/s 5(2) became 
final and it clearly indicates 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 G 
and the need for the departmental enquiry Is obviated. In the instant case, 
the material on the basis or which his promotion was denied was the sole 
ground or the prosecution u/s 5(2) and that ground when did not subsist, 
the same would not furnish the basis for D.P.C. to overlook his promotion. 
The departmental enquiry itself was dropped by the respondents. Under 
these circumstances, the very foundation on which the D.P.C. had ·H 
119 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A proceeded is clearly illegal. The appellant is entitled to the promotion with 
effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all conse· 
qnentilll benefits. [120·G, 121-B, CJ 
B 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7063-64 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribuoal Principal Bench, New Delhi io O.A. Nos. 1175/89 & 
1218 of 1988. 
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant. 
V.N. Ganpule, S.A. Matto and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. 
The followiog Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
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 con-
sidered with effect from October 1, 1982. This claim was resisted by the 
E respondents on the grouod that in 1983, he was charged for an offence 
uoder section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was kept 
under suspension and he was also commuoicated 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, 
F 
his case was considered and he was promoted io 1989. Counsel for the 
respondent was directed to produce the record relatiog to the D.P.C. 
proceediogs. We have perused the proceedings of D.P.C. which would 
clearly show that the reasons which prevailed with the D.P.C. were the 
prosecution under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the 
G departmental enquiry, against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the 
proposed departmental enquiry also 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 5(2) became final and 
it clearly iodicates that it was on merits. Therefore, once the acquittal was 
on merits the necessary consequence would be that the delinquent is 
H entitled to reinstatement as if there is no blot on his service and the need 
'
SULEKH CHAND v. COMMR. OF POLICE 
121 
for the departmental enquiry is obviated. It is settled that though the A 
delinquent official may get an acquittal on technical grounds, the 
authorities are entitled to conduct departmental enquiry on the self same 
allegations and take appropriate disciplinary action. But, here, as stated 
earlier, the acqui

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.