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....

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs 30 lakhs to the Appellant finding that he was wrongfully dismissed from Bihar Police Service.

Tags