Double Jeopardy Bars Enhanced Departmental Penalty After Conviction In Criminal Appeal: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that once a disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty based on a conviction, it cannot reopen the same incident to impose a harsher punishment merely because the criminal appeal results in a reduced sentence, as this violates the principle against double jeopardy. Background Facts The petitioner was a constable with the Delhi Police. He faced a criminal prosecution in FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code which took place on 11.06.1994. On the registration of the FIR, the constable was placed under suspension, and was later reinstated in service. He was convicted in the criminal case by the Additional Sessions Judge. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine. Aggrieved by the conviction order, the petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. Upon his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 on the ground that while posted at Police Station, he was convicted in a criminal case and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The Enquiry Officer found the constable guilty of the charges, and imposed the punishment of forfeiture of four years of approved service permanently. The punishment was made subject to the outcome of his pending criminal appeal. Later, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction for one charge but maintained the conviction for another offence. Further the sentence was reduced. Despite the relief granted in the appeal, the disciplinary authority invoked Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. It passed a fresh order removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged his removal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. It was argued by the petitioner that he had already been punished once departmentally, based on his original conviction. Therefore, it was unfair for the disciplinary authority to revisit his case and impose a harsher penalty of removal from service just because his criminal sentence was reduced on appeal. He contended that subjecting him to two separate punishments for the same incident amounted to double jeopardy. The petitioner further submitted that the initial departmental order was made subject to the outcome of his criminal appeal. It meant that his punishment would be reconsidered if his conviction was overturned. It did not mean that he could face a more severe punishment if his sentence was reduced in appeal. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the 2013 penalty order was made subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal. The appellate court confirmed the petitioner's conviction therefore, the respondents were empowered under Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police Rules to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry due to which the petitioner was dismissed. They submitted that the principle of double jeopardy was not applicable. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the departmental punishment passed in 2013 was based on the petitioner's conviction. This order was made subject to the result of his pending criminal appeal. It was clarified that such a conditional order could only mean that the punishment would be revisited if the conviction was overturned, or enhanced if the conviction or sentence was made more severe on appeal. It could not mean that the petitioner would face a harsher punishment when the outcome of the appeal was favorable to him which resulted in the acquittal on one serious charge and reduction in his sentence for the other. Relying upon the Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police Rules it was observed that rule grants discretion to the disciplinary authority. This authority had already exercised that discretion by imposing the penalty of forfeiture of service upon the original conviction. For the same incident, the authority could not reopen the case merely because the appellate court reduced the sentence while confirming one conviction. The nature and gravity of the offence had not been aggravated but it had been diluted. It was held by the court that imposing the enhanced punishment of removal from service under these circumstances was unsustainable. It amounted to penalizing the petitioner twice for the same cause and violated the principle against double jeopardy. Consequently, the Tribunal's dismissal order was set aside by the Division Bench. It was directed that the petitioner should be reinstated with all consequential benefits to be released within eight weeks. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the constable was allowed by...

Double Jeopardy Bars Enhanced Departmental Penalty After Conviction In Criminal Appeal: Delhi High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags