Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Shashi Bhusan Prasad – Appellants
Versus
Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7130 of 2009
Decided On : 01-08-2019
(A) Service Law – Departmental inquiry vis-à-vis criminal case – Facts which have been enquired in a disciplinary inquiry and in judicial proceedings are based on different allegations and set of evidence not based on same facts and circumstances – In given situation, very submission made by appellant of taking benefit of acquittal in a judicial proceedings instituted against him on the plea of having nexus with disciplinary inquiry loses its foundation – Two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different – They operate in different fields and have different objectives – Whereas object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules – Degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from degree of proof necessary to record commission of delinquency – Even rule relating to appreciation of evidence in two proceedings is also not similar – In criminal law, burden of proof is on prosecution and unless prosecution is able to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law whereas in departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’ – Acquittal by Court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve delinquent from liability under disciplinary jurisdiction of authority. (Para 19)
(B) Service Law – Dismissal – From CISF after involvement in criminal case – Acquittal in criminal case – So far as charge in departmental inquiry and charge in criminal case is concerned, it was different having been inquired on an independent set of facts and evidence in a departmental/judicial proceedings – Facts which have been enquired in a disciplinary inquiry and in judicial proceedings are based on different allegations and set of evidence not based on same facts and circumstances and in given situation, very submission made by appellant of taking benefit of acquittal in a judicial proceedings instituted against him on the plea of having nexus with disciplinary inquiry loses its foundation – Charge in criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/co-relationship based on different sets of facts and evidence which has been independently enquired in disciplinary proceedings and in a criminal trial and acquittal in criminal proceedings would not absolve appellant from liability under disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in which he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished with penalty of dismissal from service – It is not the case of appellant that any error committed in procedure prescribed under scheme of Rules 1969 has been violated or opportunity to hearing has not been afforded or principles of natural justice has been violated, in absence thereof, it is otherwise not open for Courts to interfere in disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of review under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. [Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969] (Paras 15, 16, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the Case:
Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority, appellant preferred departmental appeal primarily on the ground that since he has been acquitted in criminal case which is based on the same set of facts and evidence, order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority is not legally sustainable. Appeal was rejected by appellate authority which was further assailed before Revisional Authority that also met with the fate of its dismissal. That came to be challenged in a Writ Petition before High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. High Court dismissed writ petition.
Findings of the Court:
It is not the case of the appellant that any error committed in the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rules 1969 has been violated or opportunity to hearing has not been afforded or principles of natural justice has been violated, in absence thereof, it is otherwise not open for Courts to interfere in disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of review under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
The legal document emphasizes that criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary proceedings are fundamentally different in purpose, scope, and evidentiary standards. Criminal proceedings aim to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and involve a higher burden of proof, while departmental inquiries are based on a preponderance of probability and focus on maintaining discipline within the service (!) (!) .
An acquittal in a criminal court does not automatically exonerate the individual from disciplinary liability. The findings in criminal trials and departmental inquiries are based on different allegations, evidence, and standards of proof, and therefore, an acquittal in criminal court does not preclude the possibility of disciplinary action (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document clarifies that charges in disciplinary proceedings are often distinct from those in criminal cases, even if they arise from related facts. Each proceeding is conducted independently, with separate evidence and objectives. The outcome of a criminal trial, including an acquittal, does not automatically invalidate the findings of a disciplinary inquiry or the subsequent penalties imposed (!) (!) .
It is also noted that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness must be observed in disciplinary proceedings. However, unless there is a violation of these principles, courts generally do not interfere with disciplinary decisions, especially when the proceedings have been conducted properly and the individual has been given an opportunity to be heard (!) (!) .
Finally, the document underscores that disciplinary actions can proceed simultaneously with criminal cases, provided they are based on different facts and evidence, and that delays or pending criminal trials do not automatically stay or invalidate disciplinary proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, a judicial acquittal does not automatically negate disciplinary liability, and disciplinary proceedings are to be evaluated on their own merits, based on the evidence and procedures followed, without being solely dependent on the outcome of criminal trials.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The brief seminal facts which may be relevant for consideration of the present appeal are that while serving as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (in short “CISF”) Unit, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, a criminal case was instituted against the appellant in Plantsite P.S. Case No. 378 of 1992 under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and he was arrested on 30th November, 1992 on the allegation that he had provided a country made revolver to Subash Chandra Agarwalla, who murdered his aunt with it, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 188/41 of 1993. At the same time, for a gross misconduct being committed by him in discharge of his duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving a Memorandum along with the chargesheet dated 9th February, 1993 under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969.
3. After holding disciplinary inquiry in terms of the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rules, 1969, the Inquiry Officer after due compliance of the principles of natural justice, recorded a finding of guilt and the charge against the delinquent appellant stood proved as it reveals from the report of Inquiry(Annexure P-4 of the paper book) dated 27th April, 1994. After copy of the inquiry report was made available to the appellant and after affording him an opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and while upholding the guilt inflicted him with a penalty of dismissal from service vide Order dated 21st May, 1994. It may be relevant to note that the Sessions Trial No. 188/41 of 1993 was also proceeded against him and it reveals from the record that since the material prosecution witnesses stood hostile, he was acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 12th September, 1995.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant preferred departmental appeal primarily on the ground that since he has been acquitted in the criminal case which is based on the same set of facts and evidence, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not legally sustainable. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 24th April, 1996 which was further assailed before the Revisional Authority that also met with the fate of its dismissal. That came to be challenged in a Writ Petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Orissa, on appraisal of the material on record and taking note of the submission alleged by the appellant of his acquittal in the criminal trial vide judgment dated 12th September, 1995 still had faced the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority being not sustainable but the High Court after examining in totality the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 17th July, 2008 which is a subject matter of appeal before us.
5. The main thrust of submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since both the criminal/departmental proceedings were based on same set of facts and evidence, and after he has been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 12th September, 1995, the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority was under an obligation to give precedence of the judicial proceedings and in the given circumstances, inflicting penalty of dismissal from service based on the report of inquiry was not legally sustainable and further submitted that the error has not only been committed by the departmental authorities but also by the High Court in not appreciating the submission made by the appellant in its right earnest and in the given circumstances, the judgment impugned dated 17th July, 2008 deserves to be interfered by t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
