Disciplinary Action Can't Be Upheld When Employee Was Acquitted In Criminal Case Over Similar Evidence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that when charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in criminal proceedings and a disciplinary proceeding are identical or substantially similar and when an accused is acquitted of all charges in a criminal proceeding, upholding the findings in disciplinary proceedings would be "unjust, unfair, and oppressive".

"While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan," the Court observed..

The Court also held that the records of the disciplinary proceedings were sought by this Court from the Respondent, State of Bihar, but it was not submitted because it would have revealed the glaring illegalities in the proceedings. It stated that this disabled the Court from reviewing the degree of similarity between the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances. 

"Besides, the appellant's case is strengthened by the principle of adverse inference. It can be reasonably inferred that the respondents deliberately withheld the scanned copy of the departmental file, which was essential for us to assess whether the charges, witnesses, evidence, and circumstances in both the criminal and departmental proceedings were substantially similar or identical, likely due to concerns over the potential adverse consequences."

In light of this, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the Appellant cannot be found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings in respect of charge 1, following his acquittal in criminal proceedings, which seem to have involved substantially similar or identical charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances. It also found that in respect of other charges, the disciplinary proceedings were not in tune with the principles of fairness and natural justice and therefore, unsustainable. 

The Court directed that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Appellant. The Court also awarded cost of Rs 5 lakhs to the Appellant.

In this case, a constable in the dog squad of the Crime Investigation Department was accused of extorting money. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated but the Appellant requested that the proceedings be conducted after the conclusion of criminal proceedings, as his defence would be disclosed during such proceedings, causing him prejudice. However, the Enquiry continued and he was found guilty of all charges levelled against him. He was later dismissed from service on June 21, 1996.

Meanwhile, he was convicted by the Trial Court, but on appeal, he was acquitted of all charges on February 16, 1996, on grounds that the trial court "miserably" failed to prove the case. However, his dismissal order was upheld, ultimately leading to an SLP before this Court. The  High Court's division bench order dated November 16, 2016, which was under challenge, set aside an order passed by a Single judge quashing the order dismissing the Appellant from service and directing him to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits was set aside.

When the matter came before the Supreme Court, a bench called for the records of inquiry by the Respondent because the chargesheet drawn against the Appellant was not attested to the paper book. Since the files were withheld, as a consequence, on various accounts, the Court found illegality in the proceedings. 

Firstly, the Court observed that both disciplinary and criminal proceedings were similar in terms of allegations, and he was not acquitted by the Single judge on technical grounds but on substantive.

"The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution "miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt" as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This discussion confirms that the appellant's acquittal was based not on mere technicalities."

Secondly, it found that prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined and the informant was not called as a witness in the disciplinary proceedings.

Thirdly, the Court found that the chargesheet which was relied on in the departmental proceedings were not attested. The Court found that the specific Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which is applicable in this case, stipulates that the proposed disciplinary action must be clearly articulated in the form of specific charges, accompanied by a detailed statement outlining the allegations supporting each charge. 

The Appellant had alleged that the charges were vague, indefinite and not specific and lacked material particulars. However, the Court did not have the benefit of determining this because of the withholding of departmental files. It held that in such a case, it can be presumed that the version of the Appellant is correct.

Considering this, the Court said: "However, in view of withholding of the departmental file, the presumption that can legitimately and validly be drawn and which we do hereby draw is that the respondents did not deliberately produce the departmental file lest the illegality in proceeding against the appellant from the inception is exposed. Based on the foregoing discussion, the version of the appellant that the charges drawn up against him were vague, indefinite, unspecific and lacked essential particulars has to be accepted."

On another allegation levelled by the Appellant that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witness despite when he had alleged that one of the witnesses had a personal vendetta against him, the Court found that the State changed its position before the Single judge and before this Court. Before Single judge, it was found that the Respondent claimed there was no request from the Appellant to cross-examine the witness. However, before this Court it was argued by them that the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine despite the fact that the witness was made available.

"This demonstrates that the respondents have altered their position on the issue of cross-examination of PW-1, as reflected in their submissions both before the Single Judge and this Court. Furthermore, on perusal of the materials before this Court, preponderance of probability favours the appellant for a finding to be returned that he was denied his right to cross-examine PW-1."

"The Court therefore found that no due process was followed in dismissing him from service. Upon reviewing the materials at our disposal and considering the aforementioned anomalies in the issuance of the chargesheet and the procedural lapses, none of which can be attributed to the appellant, and in light of the absence of the departmental file pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, we are compelled to conclude beyond any cavil of doubt that due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant from service, rendering the dismissal unjustified."

Case Details: MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Click Here To Read Order