1. Government servant — Order of formal inquiry under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 — Challenge to validity of inquiry order and the Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. K. DAS, Ag. C. J., A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
(From Punjab : 63 Pun LR 780) 2nd August, 1963
R. P. Kapur, Appellant
Versus
S. Pratap Singh Kairon and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1963.
(Civil Appeal No. 832 of 1962)
D/- 12-2-1963,
Advocates Appeared
State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit Appellant in person; Mr. C. K. Daphtary; Solicitor-General of India, Mr. S. M. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab and Mr. Mohinder Singh Punu, Depoty Advocate General, for the State of Punjab, (M/s. R. N. Sachthey and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with them), for Respondents.
Important Points
Departmental inquiries into a government servant's misbehaviour are not legally barred by the filing of a first information report or the pendency of criminal proceedings, as disciplinary and criminal jurisdictions are distinct.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Section 2 and 15 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 5, 154 and 173 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 20(3), 21, 311(2) and 314 - All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Departmental inquiry vs. Criminal proceedings - No legal bar to initiating disciplinary proceedings against a government servant even if a first information report has been lodged under the Code of Criminal Procedure; the provisions of the Code for investigating offences do not preclude departmental inquiries into the truth of imputations for disciplinary action. (Paras 11-13)
(B) Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Section 2 - Term "misbehaviour" - Not vague; it signifies a lapse from the proper standard of conduct, including dishonesty or using official position for personal enrichment. (Paras 14-15)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination between modes of inquiry - No substantial difference between the procedure under the Inquiries Act and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, such that it would violate the right to equality. (Paras 16-21)
(D) Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 20(3) - Disciplinary action does not constitute a denial of equality of opportunity in employment; requiring an accused to make a defence does not amount to compelling a person to be a witness against himself. (Para 22) (E) Mala fides - Order for inquiry not established as mala fide if the inquiry is conducted by an impartial authority and the officer has statutory rights of appeal and review. (Paras 23-29)
Facts of the case:
A senior government officer was suspended following the filing of several criminal cases. After some cases were closed as untraced, the government ordered a formal and public inquiry into allegations of misbehaviour under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The officer challenged the order on grounds of vagueness of the Act, discrimination compared to other service rules, and mala fides, seeking to quash the order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is no legal bar to conducting a departmental inquiry alongside or after criminal proceedings. The term "misbehaviour" is sufficiently clear. The procedure under the Inquiries Act is not substantially more drastic than other service rules. The allegation of mala fides was not proven. However, it is undesirable to conduct the inquiry while a criminal complaint filed by the officer against the accuser is pending.
Issues: Whether the filing of a first information report bars a departmental inquiry; whether the term "misbehaviour" is too vague; whether the Inquiries Act is discriminatory under Article 14; whether the order for inquiry was mala fide; and whether parallel proceedings constitute contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres; the former is for disciplinary action and the latter for punishment of an offence. The existence of a criminal investigation does not strip the government of its power to conduct a disciplinary inquiry. The safeguards provided by the appointment of a judicial officer and the availability of appeals negate the claim of mala fides.
Result: Appeal dismissed; however, the inquiry is stayed until the disposal of the officer's criminal complaint against the accuser.
(B) Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Section 2 - Term "misbehaviour" - Not vague; it signifies a lapse from the proper standard of conduct, including dishonesty or using official position for personal enrichment. (Paras 14-15)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination between modes of inquiry - No substantial difference between the procedure under the Inquiries Act and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, such that it would violate the right to equality. (Paras 16-21)
(D) Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 20(3) - Disciplinary action does not constitute a denial of equality of opportunity in employment; requiring an accused to make a defence does not amount to compelling a person to be a witness against himself. (Para 22) (E) Mala fides - Order for inquiry not established as mala fide if the inquiry is conducted by an impartial authority and the officer has statutory rights of appeal and review. (Paras 23-29)
Facts of the case:
A senior government officer was suspended following the filing of several criminal cases. After some cases were closed as untraced, the government ordered a formal and public inquiry into allegations of misbehaviour under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. The officer challenged the order on grounds of vagueness of the Act, discrimination compared to other service rules, and mala fides, seeking to quash the order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there is no legal bar to conducting a departmental inquiry alongside or after criminal proceedings. The term "misbehaviour" is sufficiently clear. The procedure under the Inquiries Act is not substantially more drastic than other service rules. The allegation of mala fides was not proven. However, it is undesirable to conduct the inquiry while a criminal complaint filed by the officer against the accuser is pending.
Issues: Whether the filing of a first information report bars a departmental inquiry; whether the term "misbehaviour" is too vague; whether the Inquiries Act is discriminatory under Article 14; whether the order for inquiry was mala fide; and whether parallel proceedings constitute contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in different spheres; the former is for disciplinary action and the latter for punishment of an offence. The existence of a criminal investigation does not strip the government of its power to conduct a disciplinary inquiry. The safeguards provided by the appointment of a judicial officer and the availability of appeals negate the claim of mala fides.
Result: Appeal dismissed; however, the inquiry is stayed until the disposal of the officer's criminal complaint against the accuser.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Bar on disciplinary inquiry due to FIR — Vagueness of term misbehaviour — Discrimination between Inquiries Act and service rules — Violation of constitutional rights — Mala fides. (Para 7 )
3. Departmental inquiries are distinct from criminal trials — Standard of conduct for government servants — Substantial similarity between inquiry modes — Safeguards against mala fides. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 28 )
4. Filing of FIR under Code of Criminal Procedure does not legally bar the government from ordering a departmental inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act. (Para 13 )
5. Petition dismissed — Order for inquiry upheld — Inquiry stayed pending disposal of criminal complaint filed by the officer. (Para 30 , 31 )
6. Does the lodging of a first information report (FIR) bar a departmental inquiry against a government servant?
No. While it may be reasonable for the government to await the results of a police investigation or trial, there is no legal bar to ordering a departmental inquiry even when an FIR has been lodged under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 13 )
7. Is the term misbehaviour in the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, considered too vague to be legally valid?
No. Misbehaviour denotes a lapse from the proper standard of conduct. Government servants are fundamentally expected to act honestly and not use their official position for self-enrichment, providing a clear standard of conduct. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. Does requiring an accused government servant to make a defense in a departmental inquiry violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination?
No. Article 20(3) prohibits compelling a person to be a witness against themselves. A provision requiring an inquiring authority to ask the accused to make a defense does not compel the accused to be a witness against themselves. (Para 22 )
9. Does the use of a more drastic inquiry procedure than available under service rules violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
An infringement of Article 14 occurs only if there is a substantial difference between the alternative modes of inquiry. If the procedures are in substance similar, the choice of one over the other is not discriminatory. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J.:
The appellant, R. P. Kapur, was appointed to the Indian Civil Service almost 25 years ago. He continued in the service after the independence of India and since 1948 has been serving the Government of Punjab. On July 18, 1959, when the appellant was serving as Commissioner, Ambala Division he was placed under suspension. A few months before this, two criminal cases had been instituted against him. The first of these was instituted on December 10, 1958 by one M. L. Sethi against Kapur and his mother-in-law, Kaushalya Devi, on allegations of offences under S. 420 and S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The second was instituted on the complaint of one M. L. Dhingra on allegations of offences under S. 15 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Ss. 167, 168, 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was submitted by Dhingra to Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, the Chief Minister of Punjab, on February 27, 1959. Action in this case was taken under the orders of the Chief Minister and a first information report was recorded on the basis of this complaint at Chandigarh Police Station on March 4, 1959. Several other cases were instituted against the appellant and some of his relations after this, during the year 1960, including one instituted on the basis of a report by Daryao S ingh, Inspector of Police, C. I. D., Kamal. This report which bears the date November 1, 1959, alleged that the appellant had committed offences under S. 166, S. 167 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code and also under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; This report was forwarded by Daryao Singh to the Secretary, Orphanage Advisory Board, Chandigarh, in connection with the affairs of which Board the offences were said to have been committed; it was sent by the latter to the police for registration of a case and investigation, only on May 25, 1960. The criminal cases which were pending in the courts of different magistrates of the Punjab were on appellant s application transferred by this Court to criminal courts subordinate to the Allahabad High Court for disposal in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Two of these cases, one under S. 107 of the Indian Penal Code in which the appellant s wife was made an accused, and the other under S. 145 of the Indian Penal Code in which also she figured as an opposite-party, were disposed of in March and April 1961, the proceedings in both cases being dropped by an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. In the case instituted on Dhingra s complaint the investigation appears to have been completed in August-September 1959, and in February 1960, the Government of Punjab applied to the Central Government for sanction to prosecute the appellant under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as required under S. 6(c) of that Act. The Government of India was however reluctant to accord sanction and on June 2, 1960, the Government of India (Home Department) wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab indicating the view of the Central Government that such prosecution was not likely to succeed and also that as Kapur was already involved in two criminal cases and would be Facing his trial in those cases, any action to prosecute him in a third case, might look like chasing a man who was already in serious trouble. In this letter the Punjab Government was requested to consider whether it was necessary to pursue that particular case just then.
(3) The Government of Punjab does not appear to have pressed its request for sanction and ultimately on the 25th May 1961 the Police submitted the final report in the case under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the case should be consigned to record as untraced." On the same date the Magistrate made an order directing the case "to be consigned to record as untraced." A similar report was on the same date submitted by the Police to the Magistrate in the cases starte
