Service Law:
Dismissal – Propriety of – Departmental Inquiry under CISF Rules – On the charge of gross misconduct in discharge of duties – Alleged that he had handed over an unlicensed fire-arm with ammunitions to a person, which had facilitated another person in committing an offence u/ss. 302/392 IPC and s. 27 of Arms Act – In the meantime criminal case was also instituted against the delinquent u/s. 25(1) of Arms Act (wherein the delinquent was acquitted as the material witnesses turned hostile) – Inquiry Officer found him guilty – Disciplinary authority upheld the finding and inflicted penalty of dismissal from service – Order of dismissal further approved by Appellate as well as Revisional Authority – Writ Petition dismissed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Acquittal in criminal proceedings would not absolve the delinquent from the liability under disciplinary proceedings – In the present case charge in criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/co-relationship and were based on different sets of facts – There was also no error committed in the procedure prescribed under the scheme of CISF Rules – There is no violation of principles of natural justice – Therefore, it was not open for the High Court to interfere with disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of review u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution – Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 – r. 34.
Departmental proceedings and Criminal Judicial proceedings – Scope of and effect of acquittal by criminal court on departmental proceedings – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service Rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’. Acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. This is what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment in detail and needs no interference by this Court. [Para 19] [1107-G; 1108-A-C]
1.2 In the instant case the charge in the criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/corelationship and were based on different sets of facts and evidence which has been independently enquired in the disciplinary proceedings and in a criminal trial. Acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not absolve the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in which he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished with the penalty of dismissal from service. That apart, much before the judgment of the criminal case could be pronounced, the departmental enquiry was concluded and after the Inquiry Officer had held him guilty, he was punished with the penalty of dismissal from service.[Paras 21, 22] [1109-D, F-G]
Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Others (1997) 2 SCC
699 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 941 ; Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited Haldia and Others (2005) 7 SCC 764 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 314 – relied on.
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 679 ; G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 446 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 253 – distinguished.
2. It is not the case of the appellant that any error committed in the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 has been violated or opportunity to hearing has not been afforded or the principles of natural justice has been violated. In absence thereof, it is otherwise not open for the Courts to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 23] [1109-H; 1110-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.