Post-acquittal departmental enquiry not double jeopardy; Inspector General is police head. Unauthorized enquiry leads to appeal dismissal.

The court held that a departmental enquiry can be conducted post-acquittal by a criminal court as the nature of proceedings differs. It clarified that such an enquiry does not amount to double jeopardy. Regarding the identification of the real departmental head for the police force, the court determined that for the Maharashtra State Police Force, the Inspector General of Police is the relevant departmental head. The court found the departmental enquiry against the respondent unauthorized and illegal due to the involvement of an unauthorized official, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a departmental enquiry can be undertaken after an acquittal by a criminal court.
2. Identification of the real departmental head for the police force.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Departmental Enquiry Post-Acquittal:

The primary question was whether a departmental enquiry could be initiated to determine if a delinquent is fit to be retained in public service, despite being acquitted by a criminal court. The court referred to the precedent set in Babarao Dagadu v. The State, 1972 Mah. L.J. 604, which established that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not bar a departmental enquiry. The judgment clarified that the nature of proceedings before a criminal court and a departmental enquiry are distinct. The former is a judicial process, while the latter is an administrative procedure aimed at assessing the suitability of retaining a public servant in service. The court emphasized that such a procedure does not constitute double jeopardy, as the departmental enquiry is not a criminal trial and does not result in a conviction. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no automatic bar to holding departmental proceedings following an acquittal by a criminal court.

2. Identification of the Real Departmental Head:

The second significant issue was determining the appropriate departmental head for the police force. The court examined the provisions of the Bombay Civil Service Rules (B.C.S.R.) and the Bombay Police Manual. According to Rule 9 of Chapter II of the B.C.S.R., the term "Heads of Department" includes officers listed in Appendix II. For the police department, Appendix II lists only the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, as heads of departments. The court noted that the District Superintendent of Police is not included in this list.

The court further referred to the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which establishes the Inspector General of Police as the highest officer in the police force, responsible for the direction and supervision of the police force across the state. The Bombay Police Manual reinforces this by stating that the Inspector General of Police is the head of all police forces in the state, including the Bombay City Police. Paragraph 445 of the Manual specifies that after an acquittal by a criminal court, it is the duty of the departmental head to consider the evidence and determine whether the retention of the subordinate in service is desirable. The court concluded that for the Maharashtra State Police Force, the relevant departmental head is the Inspector General of Police.

Conclusion:

The court found that the departmental enquiry against the respondent was unauthorized and illegal because the Inspector General of Police had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before the enquiry was initiated. Instead, the District Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, undertook the responsibility, which was beyond his authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Additional Observations:

The court expressed distress over the fact that despite judicial pronouncements, the respondent had not been reinstated or paid any salary or allowance. The court urged the State to make amends and immediately reinstate the respondent, noting that he could still render more than ten years of useful service.

---