Disciplinary Authority Should Consider Acquittal Order Before Awarding Penalty Of Dismissal From Service: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by State Administrative Tribunal whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on a former Panchayat Development Officer, accused of demanding and accepting bribes.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraj allowed the petition filed by P V Rudruppa and said,“Cases of mindless sacking of employees nowadays galore. Proportionality in penalty is rarely seen. We say this with a lot of penury at heart. Petitioner was a victim, we repeat. Strangely, justice eluded him even at the level of Service Law Tribunal. This happened when there is absolutely no material to prima facie substantiate the allegations of demand & acceptance of bribe for doing the public duty.”The petitioner argued that he was honourably acquitted after a full-fledged trial. However, the government counsel and counsel for Lokayukta opposed the plea on the ground that extent of proof for criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings are different.The bench on going through the records observed that job being the only source of livelihood, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have shown due seriousness in treating the matter. "However, that is not done. Except referring to the Acquittal Order, there is absolutely no discussion by the first Respondent, in the impugned order of penalty. Referring to an order is one thing and discussing it, to arrive at a decision is another. More often than not, the authorities that be, labour under a wrong impression that the reference per se is tantamount to discussion. We do not subscribe to this militantly wrong view.”It added, “Had the Acquittal Order been duly adverted to, the outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings would have been much different and to the advantage of the delinquent employee. Thus, its non-consideration despite the Tribunal's mandate, constitutes the first error apparent on the face of the record.” Court said that when the facts, evidentiary material and the circumstances arising from the criminal case are identical to those in the disciplinary proceedings, ordinarily there cannot be difference in terms of their outcome."If on identical set of facts/allegations that are vouched by the very same evidentiary material/witnesses, an accused employee is acquitted after a full-fledged trial, ordinarily he cannot be punished in a disciplinary enquiry. In a way this can be likened to the doctrine of double jeopardy, constitutionally enacted in Article 20(2).”Court said while considering as to whether the case of delinquent is of 'honourable acquittal', the entire judgement in Criminal Case should be perused. "It is also desirable to secure a copy of record of the proceedings for examination, unless the said exercise poses practical difficulty. At least, it should be open to the delinquent employee to produce such copies."Court also remarked that more often than not, departmental enquiries are conducted by untrained Enquiry Officers who do not have minimum expertise in the matters and that puts the stakeholders at risk. It asserted that persons conducting enquiries should be competent, fair & impartial."The Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority at the department level, should never try to somehow hold the delinquent official guilty, by hook or crook. The rules of reason & justice should triumph. This ideal approach is lacking, we notice, in matters of the kind. A crash course of training in matters like this would be of great advantage to all the stakeholders,” it suggested.The court also urged the Government and those higher up in the hierarchy to take all steps in protecting honest officials and penalising proven delinquency. "They should be mindful of mischief mongers, who for ulterior motives, at times launch false cases of corruption/bribery. The purpose of enacting Secs.196 & 197 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding provisions existed even in Macaulay's Code) or the like provisions, is to achieve this object. 'Good faith clauses' do obtain in all civilised jurisdictions.”It added, “This statutory object if ignored, honest officials scrupulously discharging their public duties run the risk of false implication in criminal cases and/or disciplinary proceedings. This would affect the morale of the office staff. However, it is not that there are no black sheep in the system. They are a class apart for a 'differential treatment'.” On being informed that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation pending adjudication, the court said “He has been out of employment for long, although for no fault of his. It is he who gave scope for all this. However, the fact remains that whatever be the reason, he has not served the State during the period between dismissal from service and his attaining the age of superannuation. For this interregnum, he is not entitled to be paid salary on the principle of 'no work, no pay'. That being said, the subject period needs to be reckoned...

Disciplinary Authority Should Consider Acquittal Order Before Awarding Penalty Of Dismissal From Service: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags