Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.392 – Arms Act – ss.3/25 – Respondent-delinquent employee’s dismissal from service was quashed by High Court on the ground that he was acquitted by criminal court on the same set of facts and charges on which he faced departmental proceeding, directed reinstatement in service – Correctness of – Held: A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – A delinquent employee after his dismissal from service, nevertheless, seeks reinstatement when he is acquitted by a criminal court on the same set of charges and facts – Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service when found guilty in a departmental proceeding – In the present case, High Court erred in interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and placing reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported as [1999] 2 SCR 257 – It is the Disciplinary Authority which is best equipped to reach a finding whether a “misconduct” has been committed – The prime concern of a Judge should be whether such a finding has been arrived after following a fair procedure, the principles of natural justice and fairness – Further, Capt. M. Paul Anthony case must be appreciated for its unique facts and it does not lay down a law of universal application – Also, in the instant case, the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court and in appeal the Appellate Court only acquitted him by giving him a benefit of doubt – Thus, the acquittal of the respondent was not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to benefit of doubt – Order of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Police Act – s. 34.
Service Law – Departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding – Held: Both are different – The fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities”, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” – Difference between the two proceedings would lie in the nature of evidence and the degree of its scrutiny – The two forums therefore run at different levels.
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679 : [1999] 2 SCR 257 –
distinguished.
Union of India v. Sitaram Mishra (2019) 20 SCC 588 : [2019] 9 SCR 585; Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764 : [2005]
3 Suppl. SCR 314; State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh (2020) SCC OnLine SC 886 – relied on.
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.