Courts Must Examine Judgments Of Acquittal Holistically To Arrive At Conclusion, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Judgment Of CAT

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the Respondent was quashed. The Bench noted that the order of cancellation was set aside on the basis of the Respondent having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Tribunal had not examined whether it was an honourable acquittal which stood as the main issue before the Tribunal in determining if the cancellation of appointment was just and fair. Background The Respondent's appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff was cancelled on July 2nd 2021 on the basis that he was acquitted in a criminal case by giving him a benefit of doubt since the witnesses had turned hostile. The order of cancellation of his appointment stated that the Respondent's appointment was not to be treated as an honourable acquittal. Aggrieved by such order, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Counsel for the Respondent claimed before the Tribunal that the acquittal was honourable, however, as per the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt. The Order of the Magistrate stated that the Respondent was acquitted because the complainant and material witnesses had not supported the prosecution story and had turned hostile. Therefore, the Respondent was given a benefit of doubt and was acquitted as there was nothing against him. The Petitioners, dissatisfied with this decision approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. Findings of the Court On perusing the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, the Court held that the acquittal certainly was not an honourable acquittal and was made on the basis of benefit of doubt. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioners had referred to the judgment in Deputy Supdt. of Police v W.D. Sekaran. Nonetheless the Tribunal had stated that the judgment was 'per incuriam' as it was contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the Tribunal could not characterise a judgment of a High Court as per incuriam even though it could prefer relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court. On further perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, the Court observed that the Tribunal's reasoning to have passed the order in the Respondent's favour was based on him having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Court stated that it was of no relevance as the Respondent's appointment was cancelled for reasons of his acquittal which was based on giving him a benefit of doubt and that it was not an honourable acquittal. The Tribunal while deciding the matter had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v State of Rajasthan wherein it was held that the courts in dealing with judgments of acquittal should not to be carried away by the use of the expression “benefit of doubt” used by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and rather the judgment of acquittal needed to be examined holistically to arrive at a conclusion whether the acquittal was honourable or otherwise. The Court upheld the citation of the judgement, however, also stating that the Tribunal had not followed this finding of the court in the instant case and had not carried out the exercise of examining the judgment of acquittal considering each and every aspect. The Court found the setting aside of the cancellation order by the Tribunal erroneous on this ground. It was held that the Tribunal was required to ascertain whether the respondent's appointment as Multi-Tasking Staff could have been cancelled on the ground that his acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate was honourable but the Tribunal had not examined this issue at all. Making these observations, the Bench set aside the judgement of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-visiting the issue keeping in mind the decision in Ram Lal v State of Rajasthan and any other such decisions which could be consulted to decide the Respondent's case. Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus CHAND SINGHCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 195 Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Akansha Choudhary, Ms. Shweta Shandilya and Mr. Saksham Sethi, Advs. Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv. Click Here To Download Judgment/Order

Courts Must Examine Judgments Of Acquittal Holistically To Arrive At Conclusion, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Judgment Of CAT

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags