2013 INSC 1028
                                  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                               Yash Gupta

                                                    Vs.

                                           President I.C.A.R.

                                   S.L.P.(Civil.)No.18552 of 2013

                             (B.S.Chauhan and Sharad A. Bhobde, JJ.)

                                               11.11.2013

                                                 ORDER

B.S.Chauhan, J.

1. In this case, the petitioner and her husband Dr. Sarveshwar Dayal Gupta had faced
criminal prosecution in Criminal Case No. 245/2 of 2005 registered at P.S. Solan vide
FIR No. 252/2003 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan (H.P.) had acquitted both of
them under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as the `IPC').

2. Subsequently, certain departmental proceedings had been initiated against them
wherein punishment had been imposed against which the petitioner has filed this
petition after agitating up to the High Court.

3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel on 3.7.2013, we were of the view that
the judgment of the trial court could not be sustained in the eyes of law and the
petitioner and her husband Dr. Sarveshwar Dayal Gupta had been acquitted wrongly.
Thus, we passed
the following order:
        "Issue notice to the petitioner through the present Advocate as to why the trial
        court judgment in Criminal Case No. 245/2 of 2003 dated 22.6.2007 should not be
        set aside by this Court suo-motu as we do not see any reason to disbelieve the
        statement given by Dr. R.N. Verma, ex-Director of NRCM. Reply to the show
        cause notice may be filed within three weeks. List the matter thereafter So far as
        this special leave petition is concerned, it is dismissed."

4. In view thereof, a reply has been filed by the petitioner submitting that in case the order
of acquittal passed by the trial court is set aside at such a belated stage, the petitioner
would suffer an irreparable loss and injury and the career of her two children would
be adversely affected. The petitioner would not be able to look after her ailing mother and
she has tendered an unqualified and unconditional apology in an unwarranted incident
which led to a criminal prosecution of the petitioner and her husband as well as
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them. Further, in spite of the fact that both of
them had been acquitted in a criminal case, they have been awarded severe
punishment in domestic enquiry of compulsory retirement even though both of them
had a longer period of service.

5. In view thereof and taking into consideration that the petitioner's husband who
had actually committed an offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with
Section 34 IPC is not a party before us, we are of the view that the proceedings be
dropped.

In view of the above, the show cause notice issued on 3.7.2013 is discharged.