SULEKH CHAND AND SALEK CHANDversusCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

               SULEKH CHAND AND SALEK CHAND                                     A
                                     v.
               COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 30, 1994

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]                                B

      Service Law

     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.
                                                                                E
      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      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

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7063-64
                                                                                    '
    of 1994.
B
          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.
c
          V.N. Ganpule, S.A. Matto and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents.

          The followiog Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.
D
           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 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 nor subsist, the same· would not B
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 on which the D.P.C. had
proceeded is clearly illegal. The appellant is entitled to the promotion with
 effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all conse- C
 quental benefits. The appeals are allowed. No costs.

A.G.                                                   Appeals allowed.