1. Departmental proceedings for fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of funds — Penalty of compulsory retirement — Subsequent acquittal in criminal proceedings for the primary charge. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 333
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G B Pattanaik, S C Agarwal
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATHANAMTHITTA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
A. GOPALAN, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 1554 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1623 of 1994), decided on February 21, 1997.
Important Points
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate findings in departmental proceedings. Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas departmental proceedings are decided on the preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, disciplinary action can be sustained despite a criminal acquittal.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Charges of misconduct - Report of inquiry - Respondent was employed as Sub-Postmaster during period - Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on two charges of misconduct - First charge was that while he was functioning as Sub- Postmaster, he fraudulently effected withdrawal of without knowledge of depositor from Savings Bank Account, by himself a putting signature of depositor on application for withdrawal and he took amount himself - Second charge was that while functioning as Sub- Postmaster, during period, he failed to account for the amounts realised by him as customs duty from addressees in respect of hand foreign parcels, dates of delivery of those parcels - An inquiry was conducted into charges and inquiry officer found that both charges were established - Report of inquiry officer was accepted by disciplinary authority who imposed penalty of dismissal from service on respondent - On appeal penalty was reduced to compulsory retirement by appellate authority – Held, Court have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants learned counsel appearing for respondent and has submitted that since respondent has been acquitted by criminal court on charge of withdrawal of sum Tribunal was right in holding that finding regarding first charge could not be sustained - In that case Court has rejected contention that disciplinary proceedings a could not be continued in face of acquittal in criminal case and has held that nature and scope of criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceedings and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings - Having regard to fact that second charge related to misappropriation of funds for which punishment of compulsory retirement could be imposed Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction, could not direct appellate authority to review penalty imposed on respondent -Court are unable to uphold impugned judgment of Tribunal - Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of Tribunal in OA is set aside and filed by respondent before Tribunal is dismissed – Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings on a charge of fraud necessitates the setting aside of findings and punishment in corresponding departmental proceedings. (Para 6 )
3. Criminal and departmental proceedings differ in scope and standard of proof — Acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not automatically invalidate findings based on preponderance of probabilities. (Para 6 )
4. Departmental proceedings are not concluded by a criminal acquittal because the former relies on the preponderance of probabilities, whereas the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal judgment set aside — Original application dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Does an acquittal in a criminal court automatically result in the exoneration of an employee in departmental proceedings for the same act?
No. The nature and scope of criminal cases differ from departmental proceedings. An order of acquittal cannot conclude departmental proceedings because the standards of proof differ. (Para 6 )
7. What is the difference in the standard of proof between criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary proceedings?
In a criminal case, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, the charge is proved by the preponderance of probabilities. (Para 6 )
8. Can a penalty imposed in departmental proceedings be sustained if the employee is acquitted of the most serious charge in a criminal court?
Yes, provided other established charges, such as misappropriation of funds, justify the penalty imposed, regardless of the acquittal on other charges in criminal court. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The respondent, A. Gopalan, was employed as Sub-Postmaster, Kalanjoor; during the period from 14-8-1984 to 22-8-1985. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on two charges of misconduct. The first charge was that while he was functioning as Sub- Postmaster, Kalanjoor, on 21-8-1985, he fraudulently effected withdrawal of Rs. 8000 without the knowledge of the depositor from Savings Bank Account No. 150657 of Kalanjoor so standing in the name of Smt T. K. Radbamony by himself a putting the signature of the depositor on the application for withdrawal and he took the amount himself. The second charge was that while functioning as Sub- Postmaster, Kalanjoor, during the period from 14-8-1984 to 22-8-1985 he failed to account for the amounts of Rs. 379 and Rs. 799 realised by him as customs duty from the addressees in respect of hand foreign parcels on 14-8-1984 and 21-8-1984, the dates of delivery of those parcels. An inquiry was conducted into the charges and the inquiry officer found that both the charges were established. The report of the inquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority who imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent. On appeal the penalty was reduced to compulsory retirement by the appellate authority.
4. It appears that the respondent was prosecuted in a criminal court in respect of the offences under Sections 407, 467 and 477-A IPC disclosed in the first charge regarding the withdrawal of Rs. 8000 by him. In the said criminal proceedings the respondent was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by the judgment dated 31-8- 1987 on the view that benefit of doubt must be given to the respondent and that the offence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The said judgment of acquittal was affirmed in appeal by the High Court.
5. The appellant filed an application [OA No. 1045 of 1991) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). By the impugned judgment dated 15-6-1993 the Tribunal has held that after the acquittal of the respondent by the criminal court, which was affirmed in appeal by the High Court, a punishment should not be imposed in the departmental proceedings based on the finding relating to the first charge regarding withdrawal of Rs. 8000 and the same has to be set aside. As regards the second charge, the Tribunal held that the question of punishment has to be reviewed because the punishment was related to two charges and since the finding on the more serious of the charges has been set aside as unsustainable, the order to the extent of imposing the punishment could not be sustained. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the application and set aside the order of punishment with the direction that the appellate authority will consider the question of punishment afresh and pass appropriate orders.
6. We have heard Shri VC. Mahajan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri K. M. K. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Shri Nair has submitted that since the respondent has been acquitted by the criminal court on the charge of withdrawal of Rs. 8000, the Tribunal was right in holding that the finding regarding the first charge could not be sustained. Shri Nair has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nelson Motis v. Union of India ((1992) 4 SCC 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) 23 ATC 382 : JT (1992) 5 SC 511). The said decision does not lend support to the said submission of Shri Nair. In that case the Court has rejected the contention that disciplinary proceedings a could not be continued in the face of the acquittal in the criminal case and has held that the nature and scope of the criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceedings and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings. This is so because in a crimina
