Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Railway Employee's Removal After Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Same Allegations

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the removal of a railway employee from service after holding that the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution were founded on substantially identical allegations, evidence and circumstances, and that his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case rendered the disciplinary findings unsustainable.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen allowed the writ petition filed by Asim Kumar Paul, a former Senior TNC/NH employee of the Railways, and directed the authorities to release all retiral benefits to him on a notional basis as if he had retired normally upon superannuation.BackgroundThe petitioner was served with a charge memorandum in 1994 alleging violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The allegation was that while on duty in February 1991, he fraudulently diverted a wagon carrying CR sheets from its original destination Gorakhpur to Siwan by making false entries in railway records, thereby facilitating fraudulent delivery of the consignment on forged railway receipts.Following a departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer found the charges proved. The disciplinary authority initially imposed the punishment of reduction by one grade in the time scale for two years with cumulative effect.However, during appeal proceedings, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice proposing enhancement of punishment to removal from service. After considering the petitioner's reply, the punishment was enhanced to removal from service in September 2003. The revisional authority and later the Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the punishment.Meanwhile, in a parallel criminal case arising out of the same allegations, the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 420, 408, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. In 2019, the appellate criminal court acquitted him after finding that the prosecution failed to prove who altered the wagon labels and observing that the petitioner could not be made a “scapegoat” merely because he had made entries in the outgoing register.Court's FindingsThe High Court found that the departmental charges and the criminal allegations were “identical or substantially similar”.The Bench noted that the core allegation in both proceedings was that the petitioner had fraudulently diverted the wagon to Siwan by making false entries with mala fide intent.Referring extensively to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that while acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, the position changes where the charges, witnesses, evidence and surrounding circumstances in both proceedings are substantially identical.The Bench observed: “It thus appears to us that the charges, the evidence, the witnesses and the circumstances in both the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceeding are identical or substantially similar.”The Court further noted that apart from allegations of mala fide and fraudulent conduct, no independent charge of negligence had been framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.Accordingly, the Court held that the findings of the enquiry officer, appellate authority, revisional authority and the Tribunal could not survive after the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal appeal.The Bench also distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee relied on by the Railways, observing that the said case did not involve the impact of acquittal in a criminal trial where the evidence and charges were substantially identical.Although the Court set aside the removal order and all consequential disciplinary findings, it refused to grant back wages from 2003 till the petitioner's retirement in 2014.The Bench observed that the petitioner had neither sought back wages in his pleadings nor produced any evidence showing that he remained unemployed during the relevant period.Relying on decisions including Mulin Sharma v. State of Assam and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, the Court held that reinstatement or setting aside of termination does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages.The Court ultimately directed the Railway authorities to release all retiral dues to the petitioner on a notional basis within sixty working days.Mr. Debottam Das, Adv., Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee, Adv, for the petitioners.Case: Asim Kumar Paul v. Union of India & Ors.Case No.: WP.CT 75 of 2010Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Railway Employee's Removal After Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Same Allegations

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Railway Employee's Removal After Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Same Allegations

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers