Same Charges & Evidence In Criminal & Dept Proceedings, Acquittal In Criminal Case Absolves Employee From Dept Proceedings: Kerala High Court reiterates

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a police constable who was terminated from service, ruling that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 bars disciplinary action based on the same facts that led to acquittal in criminal proceedings. The court limited back wages to three years while granting all other service benefits. Background V.V. Kumaran, a Police Constable at Kasaragod Town Police Station, was terminated from service following disciplinary proceedings. The allegation against him was that while on sentry duty, he along with other police personnel committed theft of five barrels of sandalwood oil kept in the lockup and replaced it with water. Following a disciplinary enquiry that found him guilty, the District Police Superintendent removed him from service on October 30, 1999. His subsequent appeals to various authorities, including the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Inspector General of Police, Director General of Police, and the Government, were all dismissed. He then approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which set aside his termination and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Arguments The petitioners (State authorities) challenged the Tribunal's order through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Their primary contention was that the disciplinary proceedings, having been initiated before the commencement of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, should not be governed by Section 101(8) of the Act. They argued that the Tribunal erred in equating criminal prosecution with departmental proceedings, as the standards of proof and approach in both proceedings are fundamentally different. The petitioners also contested the Tribunal's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgments in Corporation of the City of Nagpur and Paul Anthony cases, arguing that these precedents did not automatically bar disciplinary proceedings following criminal acquittal. The respondent (Kumaran) contended that since he was acquitted in the criminal prosecution by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings could not sustain in law. He relied on Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 - which explicitly prohibits penalties in departmental enquiries based on the same facts where a police officer has been exonerated by a criminal court after trial. He argued that when the same evidence and witnesses were considered in both proceedings, and the criminal court found him not guilty, no disciplinary action was possible. Court's Reasoning Firstly, examining the charges and evidence in both proceedings, the court found them to be identical. The court noted that the allegations and witnesses in both the disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution were materially and substantially the same, involving the theft of sandalwood oil from police custody. Secondly, the court analyzed Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, citing previous decisions in State of Kerala v. S.Vijayakumar, State of Kerala v. P.V.Kuryan, and Amalraj S. v. State of Kerala. The court held that while departmental proceedings can be initiated in the same matter, once acquitted by a criminal court, an officer cannot be penalized based on the same facts unless there are additional materials proving different facts in the departmental enquiry. Thirdly, the court relied on the Supreme Court case of Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., which established that when charges and evidence in criminal and departmental proceedings are the same, acquittal in the criminal case absolves the person from departmental proceedings. Finally, on relief, following G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat, the court limited back wages to three years while maintaining other service benefits as ordered by the Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Sr. GP Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. M. SasindranCase Title: Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. KumaranCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Same Charges & Evidence In Criminal & Dept Proceedings, Acquittal In Criminal Case Absolves Employee From Dept Proceedings: Kerala High Court reiterates

Pranav Kumar

Tags