Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012

AJAY KUMAR SINGH                                     ...Appellant Versus

THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF  & ORS.                        ...Respondents

With  CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos………..… OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8037-8038 of 2012)

DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH             ...Appellant Versus

THE CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF,  INDIAN NAVY & ORS.                …Respondents

And     CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 471-472 OF 2013

UMESH KUMAR SINGH                                       …Appellant Versus  

THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ORS.        …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

 Delay  condoned  and  leave  granted  in  SLP  (Crl.)

No.8037-8038 of 2012.

2.  Appellant-Ajay  Kumar  Singh  (AK  Singh),

Ex-Seaman, First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.325 of

2012) and Umesh Kumar Singh (UK Singh), Ex-Radio Operator

1

Page 2

(Special), First Class (appellant in Criminal Appeals No.471-472

of 2013) have assailed the judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal,

Chennai  in  T.A.  No.139  of  2010  dated  11.11.2010  and  T.A.

No.11 of  2011 dated 05.01.2012 and order  dated 17.02.2012

passed in Review Petition No.2  of  2012 in  and by which the

tribunal affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections

342 and 392 IPC read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, 1957

and modified the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period

already undergone by them.  Appellant Dhirendra Kumar Singh

(DK Singh), Ex-Leading Seaman, Physical Trainer, Second Class

who was acquitted by the tribunal with pensionary benefits, has

preferred separate  appeals  seeking direction for  reinstatement

and other  monetary  benefits.   These criminal  appeals  though

assail separate judgments of Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai,

as the appeals arise out of the same bank robbery incident, all

the  appeals  were  heard  together  and  are  disposed of  by  this

common judgment.  

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as

follows: Mr. N.K. Marwaha, Branch Manager of  Andhra Bank,

Extension  Counter,  situated  at  Utility  Complex,  INS  Virbahu

filed a complaint on 04.06.1998 at Malkapuram Police Station

2

Page 3

alleging that at about 7.20 p.m. while settling the accounts for

the day along with Nallamuthu Dass, the cashier, noticed two

persons entered the bank stating that they wanted to open a

bank account and the third person entered after them.  Of three

persons, two were armed with two countrymade pistols, a khukri

and an iron rod and they together threatened the manager and

cashier to open iron safe. Manager-Marwaha and cashier opened

the iron chest and the culprits removed Rs.2,54,376/- from the

cash tray of the iron safe and kept the same in the blue colour

rexin bag which they were carrying.  They removed the money,

the three persons locked the manager and the cashier inside the

strong room of the bank before escaping in a metallic blue Bajaj

Chetak scooter alongwith the blue colour cash bag.  During the

commission  of  the  offence,  the  culprits  were  concealing  their

identity by wearing helmets with visors and masks. After forcing

open strong room where they had been locked, the manager filed

a complaint  on 04.06.1998 before  Malkapuram Police  Station

based on which first information report was registered in Crime

No.34  of  1998  under  Sections  392  and  342  IPC  read  with

Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act.  The Naval Police had taken

over the investigation; but they were unable to make headway

3

Page 4

into  identity  of  the  accused  persons  despite  recovery  of  the

scooter and other articles on 23.07.1998.  The investigation was

then handed over to the civil police. After further investigation,

civil  police  arrested  appellants  AK  Singh  and  UK  Singh  on

30.07.1998.   Appellant  DK  Singh  was  arrested  at  Howrah

Railway  Station  on  24.07.1998  and  thereafter  brought  to

Visakhapatnam on 28.07.1998. On 30.07.1998 all three persons

were remanded to custody in central jail, Visakhapatnam. Based

on the statement of the accused persons, certain recoveries were

made. On 17.08.1998, identification parade was conducted and

PWs 14 and 18 identified the appellants.   

4. The  Commissioner  of  Police,  Visakhapatnam  vide

letter  dated  28.10.1998  advised  the  Flag  Officer,

Commanding-in-Chief,  Eastern  Naval  Command,

Visakhapatnam to  try  the  accused persons  by Court  Martial.

Therefore,  the  appellants  were  transferred  to  naval  custody

under the provisions of Section 475 Cr.P.C. read with Criminal

Courts  and  Court  Martial  (Adjustment  of  Jurisdiction)  Rules,

1978  and  the  matter  was  investigated  afresh  by  the

Commanding  Officer,  INS  Circars.   After  completion  of

investigation,  chargesheet  was  filed  against  the  appellants  on

4

Page 5

26.06.1999 under Sections 392 and 342 IPC read with Section

77 (2) of the Naval Act and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act read

with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act:-(i) for committing a robbery of

Rs.2,54,371/-  at  the Andhra Bank Extension Counter  at  INS

Virbahu; (ii) for wrongful confinement  of the bank manager and

cashier;  (iii)  for  possession  of  country  made  pistol  and  three

rounds of ammunition whilst committing  the offence; and (iv)

that accused had remained absent without leave.   The  Court

Martial  was convened on 16.07.1999 and the appellants were

tried before the Court Martial.   

5. Before  the  Court  Martial,  twenty  nine  prosecution

witnesses were examined. Upon consideration of evidence, the

Court Martial found the appellants guilty of various charges and

sentenced them to undergo various imprisonments. Additionally,

all three appellants were imposed punishment of dismissal with

disgrace  and  to  suffer  such  other  consequential  penalties

involved. The appellants preferred statutory appeals before the

Chief of the Naval Staff in accordance with Section 162 of Navy

Act 1957.  The Chief of Naval Staff confirmed the conviction of

the appellants and reduced the imprisonment and maintained

dismissal of the appellants with disgrace from the naval service.  

5

Page 6

6. The details of charges framed against the appellants,

findings of  the court martial,  punishment and findings of  the

appellate authority/Chief of the Naval Staff are as under:-

Na me  of the Appell ant

Charges Framed

Findings  of  the Court  Martial  and Punishment

Findings  of the  Appellate Authority/Chief of  the  Naval Staff

AK Singh  

1.  Under Section  392  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

2.  Under Section  342  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

3. Under Section  25  (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

Found  guilty  of charges  1  and  2 under  Sections  392 and  342  IPC  read with  Section  77(2) Navy  Act  and sentenced to undergo RI  for  sixty  months; dismissal  from service with disgrace and  to  suffer consequential penalties involved.

Maintained the  conviction and reduced the sentence  to twenty  four months; Confirmed dismissal  from service  with disgrace.  

UK Singh

1. Under Section  392  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

2.  Under Section  342  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) Navy Act.   

3. Under Section  25  (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

4.  Under Section  51  Navy Act.

Found  guilty  of charges  1,  2  and  4 under  Sections  392, 342  IPC  read  with Sections  77(2)  and 51  of  Navy  Act  and sentenced to undergo RI  for  ninety  six months;  dismissal from  service  with disgrace  and  to forfeit  fourteen  days mullets  of  pay  and allowance and suffer consequential penalties involved.   

Maintained the  conviction and reduced the sentence  from ninety  six months  to seventy  two months; confirmed dismissal  from service  with disgrace; forfeiture mullets of  pay  and allowances  for fourteen  days and to suffer the consequential penalties.

DK Singh

1.  Under Section  392  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) of Navy Act.

2.  Under Section  342  IPC read  with  Section 77 (2) of Navy Act.

3. Under Section  60(a)  Navy

Found  guilty  of charges 1, 2,3 and 5 under  Sections  392, 342  IPC  read  with Sections  77  (2),  60 (a)  and  49  (2)(b)  of the  Navy  Act. Sentenced  to undergo  RI  for  120 months  dismissal

Maintained finding  of  Court Martial except on charge  No.5 under  Section 49(2)(b)  who  is found  guilty  of alternate  charge under Section 51 of  the  Navy  Act

6

Page 7

Act. 4.  Under

Section  25  (1-A) Arms Act read with Section 77 (2) Navy Act.

5.  Under Section 49 (2) (b) of Navy  Act. Alternatively, under Section  51  Navy Act.

from  service  with disgrace  and consequential penalties involved.

Charge  No.  4  – Not guilty.

and  reduced sentence  from 120  months  to 96  months. Reduced  the rank to  Sea I.

7.  Challenging  the  conviction  and  the  punishment  of

dismissal with disgrace, the appellants have filed writ petitions

before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which upon constitution

of the Armed Forces Tribunal were transferred to Armed Forces

Tribunal,  Chennai  and  the  tribunal  disposed  of  the  appeals

confirming  the  conviction  of  the  appellants  AK  Singh  and

UK  Singh.  The  tribunal  disbelieved  the  versions  of  PW-14

(Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) and held that PWs 14 and 18

could  not  have  seen  the  faces  of  the  culprits  at  the  time  of

committing the crime since even according to the prosecution

the accused covered their  faces with masks and helmets and

were conversing only by lifting the visors of the helmets. PW-15

fingerprint expert opined “that fingerprints marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’

tallied with the specimen fingerprints of appellants AK Singh and

UK Singh” (Exs.P46 and P47).  Based on the evidence of PW-15

V. Hanumantha Rao, Fingerprint Expert, the tribunal confirmed

7

Page 8

the conviction of  the appellants-AK Singh and UK Singh and

reduced  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  on  the

appellants  AK  Singh  and  UK  Singh  to  the  period  already

undergone by them and maintained their dismissal.     

8. In so far as DK Singh is concerned, the tribunal held

that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish his guilt and

acquitted him giving him benefit of doubt.  The tribunal directed

that DK Singh’s period of arrest till the date of sentence by the

Court  Martial  shall  be  counted  for  the  qualifying  service  to

enable DK Singh to get his pension.  The tribunal however held

that DK Singh shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit like

backwages etc. for the interregnum period except that the same

is  counted  for  qualifying  service  for  getting  pension.   Being

aggrieved  by  declining  the  relief  of  reinstatement  and  other

monetary  benefits,  DK  Singh  has  preferred  Criminal  Appeals

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8037-8038 of 2012.   

9.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  and  appellant

DK Singh who appeared in person reiterated the pleas urged

before the court martial  and the tribunal and submitted that

great injustice has been done to the appellants in not following

the  procedure  established  by  law  inasmuch  as  there  was

8

Page 9

non-compliance  of  the  provisions  of  Section  5  of  the

Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 in taking the fingerprints of

the appellants.  It was submitted that the photographs of the

appellants were taken and were shown to the PW-14 (manager)

and  PW-18  (cashier)  to  enable  them  to  identify  the

appellants-accused  without  which,  it  would  not  have  been

possible  for  PW-14  and  PW-18  to  identify  them  since  even

according to the prosecution version when they entered the bank

in order to conceal their identity, they were wearing helmets and

visors.  It was submitted that the Court Martial and the Tribunal

committed  serious  error  in  appreciating  the  evidence  and

material on record.  

10. Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents

submitted that the case of the appellants have been extensively

dealt with by the tribunal and all the questions of law and fact

have been considered at length and the tribunal has passed a

reasoned order wherein all the issues raised by the parties have

been  considered  and  the  impugned  order  warrants  no

interference.  In so far as appellant–DK Singh it was submitted

that  acquittal  in  the  criminal  case  does  not  entitle  him  for

9

Page 10

reinstatement as he was not honourably acquitted but was given

benefit of doubt and cannot claim reinstatement as of right.      

11. We  have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions

and perused the impugned judgments and material on record.  

12. PW-14 (Manager)  and PW-18 (Cashier)  have clearly

spoken about the occurrence that  on the date  of  incident on

04.06.1998, three persons entered into the bank and threatened

PW-14 and PW-18 by showing gun and committed robbery in the

bank.   Before  the  Court  Martial,  PW-14  and  PW-18  have

identified the three  appellants  as  the culprits  who committed

robbery in the bank.  PW-14 and PW-18 have also spoken about

the identification parade held in the prison and that they have

identified the appellants in the test identification parade.

13. The tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW-14 and

PW-18 and their identification of the appellants on the ground

that they could not have seen the faces of the culprits at the

time  of  commission  of  offence,  since  even  according  to  the

prosecution, the appellants were covering their faces with masks

and helmets  with visors  and they lifted the visors  only while

conversing with the bank personnel and tribunal held that there

was  no  possibility  of  PW-14  (Manager)  and  PW-18  (Cashier)

10

Page 11

seeing the faces of the accused.  The tribunal further relied upon

the representation made by the appellants to the Metropolitan

Magistrate  that  they  had been photographed by the  police  to

enable the eye-witnesses (PWs 14 and 18) to identify them in the

test  identification  parade  and  on  those  findings,  the  tribunal

disbelieved  the  evidence  of  PW-14  and  PW-18  insofar  as  the

identification of the appellants.      

14. The  tribunal,  in  our  view,  was  not  right  in

disbelieving  the  evidence  of  PW-14  (Manager)  and  PW-18

(Cashier) as to the identification of the appellants as the culprits

who committed robbery in the bank. The occurrence was at 7.20

p.m.  on  04.06.1998.   At  the  time  of  occurrence,  the  bank

personnel  including  PW-14  and  PW-18  were  working  and

settling the accounts and were about to close the bank. Since

the  bank  personnel  were  still  at  work  in  the  bank,  it  is

reasonable to assume that there was enough light to do so inside

the bank. The appellants who entered the bank initially asked

PW-14 to open the bank account.  Before however PW-14 could

refuse, the appellants took out a revolver and other weapons.

From the  evidence  of  PW-14 and  PW-18,  it  is  clear  that  the

incident lasted for a brief  period during which the appellants

11

Page 12

were talking to each other.  As per the evidence of PW-14 and

PW-18, while the culprits were so conversing lifting their visors,

they  were  able  to  see  the  culprits.  It  is  obvious  that  the

extraordinary situation, in which the incidence occurred must

have left an indelible impression in the mind of the witnesses

about the identity of the culprits.  Be it noted that immediately

after the incident,  PW-14 (Manager) lodged the complaint before

Malkapuram  Police  Station  wherein  he  gave  the  descriptive

particulars of the three culprits namely their age, height, colour

complexion etc. and also given the details of the weapons.  As

noted earlier, identity of the appellants by PW-14 and PW-18 in

the court is also corroborated by identification of the appellants

by PW-14 and PW-18 in the test identification parade.  In that

view, the tribunal was not right in disbelieving the evidence of

PW-14 (Manager)  and PW-18 (Cashier).  It  is  also  pertinent  to

note that PW-14 and PW-18 had no reason to falsely implicate

the  appellants  which  aspect  was  not  kept  in  view  by  the

tribunal.   To  that  extent,  we  differ  from  the  findings  of  the

tribunal and accepting the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18 and

maintain the conviction of appellants-AK Singh and UK Singh.

12

Page 13

15. Yet  another  piece  of  evidence  relied  upon  by  the

prosecution is the recovery of weapons from AK Singh.  As per

the prosecution, appellant-AK Singh was arrested on 30.07.1998

and  based  on  his  confession,  the  weapons  used  in  the

commission of offence were recovered under Section 27 of the

Evidence  Act.  Photographs  of  the  weapons/material  objects

recovered  were  produced  before  the  court  martial  and  the

tribunal has noted that the photograph of the weapon was taken

on  29.07.1998  itself,  as  seen  from the  requisition  for  taking

photo  of  the  weapons.  The  tribunal  therefore  disbelieved  the

prosecution case in so far as the recovery of the weapon used at

the time of committing the offence. Since we did not have the

benefit  of  perusing the photographs, so produced,  we are not

expressing any view about the findings of the tribunal on this

aspect.

16. To sustain the conviction of AK Singh and UK Singh,

court martial as well as the tribunal relied upon the evidence of

Fingerprint Expert-V. Hanumantha Rao (PW-15) who had stated

that upon information to the control  room on 04.06.1998, he

reached the scene of  occurrence at Naval  Base, Andhra Bank

Extension Counter, INS Virbahu at 9.00 p.m.  While examining

13

Page 14

the  scene  of  occurrence,  PW-15  observed  two  chance

fingerprints  on  the  glass  entrance  door  of  the  bank.  PW-15

developed  the  same  with  his  universal  or  white  powder  and

marked them as “A” and “B” for the purpose of lifting them by

taking photos.  As the photographer was not available, PW-15

left the scene of occurrence and on the next day morning i.e.

05.06.1998 at about 0800 hrs., PW-15 took the police constable

Trimul Kumar-photographer of MFSL Unit, Visakhapatnam and

photographed  the  preserved  chance  fingerprints.  The  chance

fingerprints  so  lifted  were  kept  in  the  office  of  PW-15  for

comparison.  The police supplied the specimen fingerprints of

bank officials for comparison and as per the evidence of PW-15,

fingerprints of the bank employees did not tally with the chance

fingerprints  lifted  from  the  entrance  door  of  the  bank.  Two

months  later  after  the  arrest  of  the  appellants,  specimen

fingerprints of AK Singh, UK Singh and also DK Singh were sent

to PW-15 for comparison.  On comparison, PW-15 noted that the

chance  fingerprint  marked  “A”  was  identical  to  the  specimen

right  middle  finger  impression  marked  as  “S1”  which  is  the

specimen fingerprint of appellant-AK Singh and the said report

was marked as Ex.P-46.  In Ex.P-47-report, PW-15 opined that

14

Page 15

chance  fingerprint  marked  “B”  was  identical  to  the  specimen

right  index finger  impression as “S(a)”  which is  the specimen

finger impression of appellant-UK Singh.

17. Contention  of  respondents  is  that  evidence  of

PW-15-Fingerprint Expert incriminates the appellants AK Singh

and UK Singh.  However, in proving this incriminating evidence,

there  seems to  be  lapses  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution.  As

noticed earlier, police constable Tirumal Kumar-photographer of

MFSL Unit had taken the photographs of the preserved chance

fingerprints.  To  prove  the  chance  fingerprints  lifted  from the

entrance glass doors of the bank, the prosecution should have

proved the photographs by examining constable-Trimul Kumar

and should have produced the negatives of the photographs of

the chance fingerprints.  This lapse in the prosecution, in our

view, cannot result in acquittal of the appellants.  The evidence

adduced by the prosecution must be scrutinized independently

of such lapses either in the investigation or by the prosecution

or otherwise, the result of the criminal trial would depend upon

the  level  of  investigation  or  the  conduct  of  the  prosecution.

Criminal trials should not be made casualty for such lapses in

the investigation or prosecution. Evidence of PW-14 (Manager)

15

Page 16

and  PW-18  (Cashier)  identifying  the  appellants  and  their

evidence as to identity of the appellants in the test identification

parade ought not to have been disbelieved by the tribunal.  In

exercise of power under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal

Act, this Court normally does not re-appreciate the evidence and

slow to interfere with the findings of the tribunal unless there is

substantial question of public importance.  But when it is found

that  appreciation  of  evidence  in  a  given  case  is  vitiated  by

serious  error,  this  Court  can  re-appreciate  the  evidence  and

interfere with the findings.  In our view, the tribunal was not

right in disbelieving the evidence of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18

(Cashier) in identifying the appellants AK Singh, UK Singh and

DK Singh  as  culprits  and  their  identity  in  test  identification

parade and their conviction is to be affirmed on the evidence of

PW-14 and PW-18, if not on the evidence of fingerprint expert

and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.  

18. In  so  far  as  appellant-UK  Singh,  prosecution  has

adduced  evidence  to  show  that  after  the  incident,  he  has

deposited  huge  amount  in  his  bank  account.  PW-29-Gopal

Priyadarshi,  Assistant,  Central  Bank  of  India  stated  that

appellant-UK Singh is having account No.8206 in Central Bank

16

Page 17

of  India,  Azamgarh  Branch,  Uttar  Pradesh  and  that  he  had

deposited Rs.81,600/- on 11.06.1998. Ex. P76 is the certificate

issued by the Central Bank, Azamgarh dated 07.10.1998 as per

which  the  last  balance  in  the  account  of  UK  Singh  is

Rs.1,32,670/- including an interest of Rs.570/-.  PW-29 deposed

that as per Ex.C-11, pay in slip, the denomination of the cash of

Rs.81,600/-  deposited  by  the  accused  was,  one  bundle  of

Rs.500/-(Rs.500x100=50,000/-),  316  notes  of  Rs.100/-

(Rs.100x316= 31,600/-) total Rs.81,600/-. Appellant-UK Singh

has not explained the source of such huge amount deposited in

the  bank  on  11.06.1998  which  is  a  strong  incriminating

circumstance against the appellant.  

19. Facts  leading  to  DK  Singh’s  arrest  are  slightly

different from those of AK Singh and UK Singh.  DK Singh was

serving  on  Board  alongwith  other  sailors  in  INS  Anjadip,

Visakhapatnam  on  04.06.1998.  He  collected  his  Genform

No.358/S  dated  03.07.1998  from  ship  INS  Anjadip  at

Visakhapatnam  and  proceeded  to  his  next  duty  station  for

POPTI  ‘Q’  course  at  INS,  Venduruthy,  Cochin.  DK  Singh

alongwith  his  wife,  children  and  brother-in-law  proceeded

towards his native place by Corromandal express.  On the basis

17

Page 18

of  information,  DK  Singh  was  arrested  at  Howrah  Railway

Station on 24.07.1998, was kept under custody till 28.07.1998

at Calcutta and thereafter he was brought to Visakhapatnam on

28.07.1998.   In  Court  Martial  inquiry,  DK  Singh  was  found

guilty  and  sentenced  to  undergo  ten  years  rigorous

imprisonment  and  dismissal  with  disgrace  from  navy  with

consequential  penalties.  Upon  appeal,  his  conviction  was

confirmed and sentence was reduced to eight years. The tribunal

acquitted  appellant-DK Singh by giving  him benefit  of  doubt.

While  acquitting  DK  Singh,  tribunal  directed  that  the

appellant-DK Singh is deemed to have been retired from service

with effect from 03.05.2004 on completion of qualifying service

required  for  pension.  Assailing  the  same,  appellant-DK Singh

has  filed  the  appeal  seeking  for  reinstatement  and  other

consequential benefits.   

20. As  in  the  case  of  other  appellants,  tribunal

disbelieved the identification of  DK Singh by PWs 14 and 18.

The tribunal accepted DK Singh’s plea that his photograph was

taken on the same date when he was placed under custody i.e.

on  29.07.1998  and  identification  parade  was  conducted  on

17.08.1998.   The tribunal  was  of  the opinion that  there  was

18

Page 19

probability for the investigating agency to have shown his photo

to PWs 14 and 18.  As discussed earlier, we have differed from

the  approach  and  finding  of  the  tribunal  in  appreciation  of

evidence  of  PW-14  and  PW-18  in  identifying  the  appellants.

However,  since  Union  of  India  has  not  filed  any  appeal

challenging acquittal of appellant DK Singh, we do not propose

to go into these aspects.

21. It  is  fairly well  settled that  acquittal  by a criminal

court  would  not  debar  an employer  from exercising  power  in

accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. [vide  Ajit

Kumar Nag  v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Haldia and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764, T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255]

22. Acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a person

to automatic reinstatement.  In Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari

Lal Sidhana (1997) 4 SCC 385, it was held as under:-

“5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be reinstated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether  the  delinquent  government  servant  can  be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and  Appeal)  Rules  or  under  the  Temporary  Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a  temporary  government  servant  before  he  was  kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the factum that  he,  by then, was under suspension.  It  is

19

Page 20

only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute  any  stigma.  Mere  acquittal  of  government employee does not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision  whether  the  enquiry  into  the  conduct  is required  to  be  done  before  directing  reinstatement  or appropriate  action  should  be  taken  as  per  law,  if otherwise,  available.  Since  the  respondent  is  only  a temporary  government  servant,  the  power  being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate  the  services  of  the  employee  instead  of conducting  the  enquiry  or  to  continue  in  service  a government  servant  accused  of  defalcation  of  public money.  Reinstatement  would  be  a  charter  for  him to indulge  with  impunity  in  misappropriation  of  public money.”

23. Only if the employee had been honourably acquitted,

could he make a claim for reinstatement. In  the  case in hand,

the tribunal acquitted the appellant-DK Singh:-(i) as in the case

of AK Singh and UK Singh, tribunal disbelieved the identification

of appellant-DK Singh by PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier)

and (ii) the weapons that were alleged to have been recovered on

the basis of confession of DK Singh on 12.08.1998 appears to

have been photographed on 29.07.1998 by the prosecution, the

tribunal thus rejected the prosecution case that weapons, bag

and suitcase were recovered on the basis of confession given by

DK Singh.  Unlike AK Singh and UK Singh’s case, DK Singh did

not  have  incriminating  fingerprint  evidence  at  the  scene  of

occurrence and DK Singh raised defence plea of alibi.  According

20

Page 21

to DK Singh he was on duty along with four others on aboard

Indian Naval Ship, Anjadip on 04.06.1998 from 0900 hours to

1300 hours and then again from 1525 hours to 0740 hours on

05.06.1998.  To examine this plea of alibi, the tribunal called for

the Duty Ashore Book maintained at INS Anjadip (Original of Ex.

P.32).  DK Singh claimed that the document entry at Sl. No.53

was tampered with and consequently, tribunal noted that there

indeed was some overwriting in Sl. No.53 besides the column for

the  name  of  the  individual.  The  tribunal  concluded  that

prosecution had not placed any material on record to show that

after finishing his duty at 1300 hours, appellant-DK Singh was

allowed to avail off and thus the tribunal concluded that in the

absence of evidence that DK Singh was allowed to go off after

1300  hours  on  04.06.1998,  the  benefit  of  doubt  must  be

afforded to him.

24. The tribunal came to the collective conclusion that

no satisfactory evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to

sustain the conviction of DK Singh and therefore the tribunal set

aside  the  conviction giving  him the  benefit  of  doubt.  From a

perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the tribunal

has acquitted the appellant-DK Singh on the ground that the

21

Page 22

prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.  It  is not as if,  the appellant-DK Singh was

honourably  acquitted.  It  is  also  to  be  pointed  out  that  as

discussed above, that we have taken the view that the identity of

the  appellants  by  PW-14  (Manager)  and  PW-18  (Cashier)  is

credible  and  acceptable.  Evidence  of  PW-14  and  PW-18

identifying  DK Singh as  one  of  the  culprits  is  a  factor  to  be

reckoned with  while  considering the plea of  the appellant-DK

Singh for reinstatement.  Additionally, it is to be pointed out that

as seen from the evidence of K. Rama Krishna Rao-Inspector of

Police (PW-17) on 10.06.1998, DK Singh deposited Rs.90,000/-

in his bank account No.3395 of SBI BR Township Branch and

the  explanation  of  the  appellant  for  this  deposit  is  not

convincing.  Having regard to our findings on the evidence of

PWs  14  and  18,  the  acquittal  of  appellant-DK  Singh  itself

becomes a debatable point.  However, we do not propose to go

into this aspect since the Union of India has not filed any appeal

challenging acquittal of DK Singh.  Appellant–DK Singh who was

only granted benefit of doubt cannot seek for reinstatement and

the consequential  benefits  and his  appeal  is  also liable  to  be

dismissed.  

22

Page 23

25. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.  

……………………..CJI.         (T.S . THAKUR)   

  ………………………..J.

  (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi; July 13, 2016

23