Departmental Enquiry Can't Be Sustained Against Employee Once FIR On Same Set Of Allegations Already Stands Quashed: J&K High Court

In allowing his plea Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“Once the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is quashed by this court by an order having been upheld by the Apex court, the departmental proceedings/disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner on the identical and similar set of facts/allegations cannot be continued as same would amount to sitting over the judgement of this court”.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed against Dua by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging irregularities in his initial appointment, regularisation, and promotions within the corporation. Dua challenged the FIR, and the High Court eventually quashed it, finding the allegations unsubstantiated.

However, despite the quashed FIR, Dua faced departmental proceedings initiated based on the same accusations. He challenged these proceedings in the High Court, arguing that pursuing them amounted to "double jeopardy."

Agreeing with Dua's argument Justice Wani observed that criminal and departmental proceedings serve distinct purposes, with criminal proceedings aiming to punish offenders and departmental proceedings imposing penalties on delinquent officials within service rules. However, the court emphasised that when the charges and allegations in both proceedings are identical, and the FIR forming the basis of the departmental action is quashed, allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would undermine the court's judgment.

Justice Wani cited the Supreme Court's decision in "Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 2023" to support this view. The apex court had in this case ruled that if a court acquits an accused in a criminal case due to insufficient evidence, the departmental inquiry based on the same charges may be discontinued under certain circumstances to prevent an unjust outcome.

“..the respondents in the reply have categorically stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of letter of ACB dated 27.11.2019. Therefore, once the FIR supra was quashed by this court as the court was of the opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner did not constitute an offence much less those covered therein and such quashment of the FIR was upheld by the Apex Court, the disciplinary proceedings on the similar set of allegations cannot be allowed to continue”, the bench remarked.

The High Court further examined the question of jurisdiction in this case and noted that Dua belonged to a corporation governed by its own Articles of Association and service rules. The court ruled that the government lacked the authority to suspend or initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dua, as this power resided with the corporation's Board of Directors.

“As long as the petitioner continued to be on the establishment of the corporation his service would be governed by the Articles of Association and the Rules of 1977…Thus, in this view of the matter the respondents lack competence and jurisdiction to issue the impugned order of suspension against the petitioner or for that matter to draw, frame and serve Statement of Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation in support of the Articles of Charges”, the bench reasoned.

In light of these observations, the petition was allowed and resultantly, Memorandum along with Statement of Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation in support of the Articles of Charges issued by the Respondents was quashed as being unsustainable in law.

Case Title: Jasvinder Singh Dua Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 112

Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Adv appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA represented the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment