Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Criminal proceedings when cannot be quashed on the exoneration of the delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry – Respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor – Contractor complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau who prepared a trap which was successful – Disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department, criminal prosecution launched by the appellant-Lokayukta – Since the departmental proceedings ended in exoneration, the Respondent approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings – High Court held that if there is an exoneration on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, then criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue – Interference with:
Held: Exoneration is not on merits – Enquiry Report found that for reason of the Officer in charge of the trap having not been examined, the department was unable to establish the charge, which is not at all an exoneration on merits, but more of a discharge for lack of diligence – Even without the examination of the Inspector who laid the trap there was sufficient proof on the standard of preponderance of probabilities to find the delinquent guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe – The complainant and the independent witnesses have spoken about the incident of the successful trap laid – Enquiry Officer fell into an error by requiring proof at a higher level than that necessary under preponderance of probabilities and so did the Disciplinary Authority, in concurring with the same – Present is not a fit case where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration of the delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry – Criminal proceedings to continue. [Paras 8, 11, 15, 18]
Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Both are independent of each other:
Held: In a disciplinary enquiry the employer satisfies itself as to whether the misconduct alleged is proved and if proved, decides on the proportionate punishment that should be imposed; both of which are in the exclusive domain of the employer, to be determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities – In a criminal prosecution launched what assumes significance is the criminality of the act complained of or detected which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Both are independent of each other not only for reason of the nature of the proceedings and the standard of proof, but also for reason of the adjudication being carried on by two different entities, regulated by a different set of rules and more importantly decided on the basis of the evidence led in the independent proceedings – If evidence is not led properly in one case, it cannot govern the decision in the other case where evidence is led separately and independently. [Para 9] Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Presence of a witness – No consequence in not responding to a summons in departmental proceedings, unlike in criminal proceedings:
Held: The exoneration was on the basis of two aspects, one, the Inspector of the ACB who carried out the trap having not been examined and the other, two independent witnesses accompanying the trap team having stated that they were standing outside the office room wherein the handing over of the bribe took place – The first ground of the Inspector not having been examined based on the preponderance of probabilities, is not imperative, especially when the two independent witnesses were examined – More so, insofar as the department not being at fault since three summons were taken out and a further request was made again for summoning the witness, which was declined by the Enquiry Officer – There would be no consequence in not responding to a summons in departmental proceedings, while a like failure in criminal proceedings would be more drastic – The criminal court has ample powers to ensure the presence of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which the Enquiry Officer does not possess – The prosecuting agency and the one carrying on the departmental enquiry are two different entities – The trap was laid by the ACB, and the prosecution was conducted at the behest of the Lokayukta, and no laxity on the prosecuting agency can be presumed or anticipated of not bringing the Inspector to the box, before the criminal court – Moreover, the prosecution cannot be put an end on such anticipated laxity. [Para 21] Disciplinary enquiry – Enquiry officer vis-à-vis disciplinary authority:
Held: Enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings is not conclusive of the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent employee, which finding is in the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority – The enquiry officer is appointed only as a convenient measure to bring on record the allegations against the delinquent employee and the proof thereof and to ensure an opportunity to the delinquent employee to contest and defend the same by cross-examination of the witnesses proffered by the department and even production of further evidence, in defense – The enquiry officer merely records the evidence and the finding entered on the basis of the evidence led at the enquiry does not have any bearing on the final decision of the disciplinary authority – The disciplinary authority takes the ultimate call as to whether to concur with the findings of the enquiry authority or to differ therefrom – On a decision being taken to differ from the findings in the enquiry report as to the guilt of the delinquent employee, if it is in favour of the delinquent employee nothing more needs to be done since the enquiry stands closed exonerating the employee of the charges levelled – If the decision is to concur with the finding of guilt by the Enquiry Officer, then a show-cause is issued with the copy of the Enquiry Report – However, while differing from the finding of exoneration in the enquiry report, necessarily the disciplinary authority will not only have to issue a show-cause against the delinquent employee, with a copy of the Enquiry Report, but the show cause notice also has to specifically bring to attention of the delinquent, the aspects on which the disciplinary authority proposes to differ, based on the facts discovered in the enquiry so as to afford the delinquent employee an opportunity to proffer his defense to the same. [Para 14] Disciplinary enquiry – Enquiry officer:
Held: Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent person who would have no connection with the management to ensure against any allegation of bias – A retired judicial officer being appointed as an enquiry officer does not confer the enquiry report any higher value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to such reports. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.