Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Others – Appellants
Versus
Sankar Ghosh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29808 of 2010)
Decided On : 28-11-2013
(2013) 1 SCC 598; (2013) 7 SCC 685 - Relied upon
(1993) 3 SCC 679; 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 674; (2006) 5 SCC 446 - Referred
(b) Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968 - Chapter 19, Regulation 4 - Acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding in respect of the same cause or matter - Not a bar to award punishment in departmental proceeding - Courts below setting aside punishment of dismissal and ordering reinstatement on account of acquittal in criminal case, that too not honourably - Not proper. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this appeal is whether an employee, who was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings, is liable to be reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the respondent, who was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings, is liable to be reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings.
3. The respondent was working as a Sepoy in the 2nd Battalion of the Kolkata Armed Police. At the time of the incident, he was working as a Sepoy on deputation in the Traffic Department of Kolkata Police. He was arrested by the police in connection with Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated 12.11.2013 and charged for the offences under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for his complicity in the commission of a dacoity using a motor cycle bearing Registration No.WB-24/F-3050. On his arrest, he was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, and he was remanded to police custody till 28.11.2003 and then to judicial custody till 30.3.2004. Later, he was released on 1.4.2004. The department placed the respondent under suspension w.e.f. 26.11.2003 and was later served with a charge sheet on 1.6.2004. The operative portion of the charge sheet reads as follows :-
“You Sepoy 14610 Sankar Ghosh of 2nd Bn., K.A.P. working on deputation to Traffic Department, Kolkata Police, presently under suspension w.e.f. 26.11.2003 F.N. are charged with gross misconduct unbecoming of a member of the Kolkata Police Force in that :-
1) You were arrested on 26.11.2003 by Khardah P.S. for your direct complicity in commission of dacoity vide Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated 12.11.2003 u/S. 392 IPC adding Section 395/412 CPC and 25/27 Arms Act by using a motor cycle T.V.S. Victor Blue coloured bearing Regd No.24F/3050
2) You were produced before the Ld. SDJM Barrackpore on the same day (2611.03) and resumed P.C. till 28.11.2003 and then to J.C. till 30.3.2004. You were released from Dum Dum Central Jail on 1.4.2004.
3) It appears from the record that you have no stay out permission from the competent authority and you were involved in the criminal case in the jurisdiction of Khardah P.S. and also arrested from outside the Kolkata Police jurisdiction.
4) You being a member of the disciplined force, your involved in such type of heinous crime tarnished the image/prestige of the Kolkata Police force in the estimation of the members of the public in large.
You are hereby directed to state whether you plead guilty to the charges or want an open enquiry into the matter. Your written reply should reach within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this charge.
Deputy Commission of Police
Traffic Department, Kolkata.”
4. The respondent replied to the charge sheet and a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer after perusing the materials on record and after hearing the parties drew up his report on the enquiry on 10.11.2004. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the Enquiry Report as well as after hearing the respondent, concurred with the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent was, therefore, served with the notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. A detailed reply was submitted by the respondent. After considering the reply, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from the Police Force w.e.f. 27.12.2004. The respondent then filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
5. The Appellate Authority gave a personal hearing to the respondent on 28.2.2005. The Appellate Authority after having noticed that the order of dismissal was not passed by the appropriate authority, set aside the order and left it to the appropriate authority to pass appropriate orders based on the Enquiry Report. The Depu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.