Acquittal In Criminal Case Doesn't Bar Departmental Proceedings Against Public Servant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently noted that even if a public servant is acquitted in a corruption case due to a lack of evidence meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, they may still face a departmental inquiry.

In criminal proceedings, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while departmental inquiries require only a preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed that this difference means an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent or halt a disciplinary inquiry, thus even if the public servant was dismissed based on a disciplinary inquiry, his/her reinstatement is not automatic after a criminal acquittal.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta heard a case involving the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and a former employee. The AAI appealed against a decision of the Calcutta High Court that overturned the employee's dismissal from services based on a departmental disciplinary inquiry in a corruption case.

Briefly put, Respondent, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) at AAI, was convicted by a CBI Court for corruption charges but later acquitted by the High Court on the grounds of insufficient evidence giving him a benefit of doubt.

Despite his acquittal, AAI initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings, leading to his dismissal from services.

The High Court's Division Bench overturned his dismissal, prompting AAI to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

The Court considered whether the High Court erred in overturning the disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss the Respondent, despite their acquittal in a criminal case.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta reversed the High Court's ruling, reinstating the Respondent's dismissal. It stressed that an employer's disciplinary authority is distinct from criminal proceedings. An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action based on a separate inquiry. The Court explained that criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than the preponderance of probabilities used in disciplinary hearings.

“In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”, the court observed.

Detailed Reasons Not Required in Disciplinary Orders, Preponderance of Probabilities Sufficient for Disciplinary Action

The Court added that while holding the disciplinary inquiry against the employee, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

“All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”

“On going through the material on record, we are of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent. The Appellate Authority too has duly applied its mind to the facts available on record while affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent. These two orders have rightly been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The judgment dated 29th June, 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and unassailable.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv. Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR (Not present)