Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Ram Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 33423 of 2018
Decided On : 04-12-2023
(A) Service Law – Termination – [Constitution of India – Article 226] – Acquittal in criminal trial – Writ court’s power to review order of Disciplinary Authority is very limited – Scope of enquiry is only to examine whether decision-making process is legitimate – As part of that exercise, courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether findings of Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere – Mere acquittal by criminal court will not confer on employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement – However, if charges in departmental enquiry and criminal court are identical or similar, and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and same, then matter acquires a different dimension – If court in judicial review concludes that acquittal in criminal proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that prosecution miserably failed to prove charge, Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances – Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing findings in disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive – Each case will turn on its own facts. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
(B) Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in criminal trial – No alteration was found in Appellant’s 8th Class mark-sheet and date of birth mentioned on it – Original mark-sheet independently marked as exhibit by defence have been completely left out in discussion and consideration – Inference has been drawn about proof of charges by ignoring crucial, relevant and material evidence which had come on record – Disciplinary Authority has merely reiterated reasoning in enquiry report – Equally so are findings of appellate authority – If findings of disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring relevant material court in judicial review can interfere – Very same witnesses who were examined in departmental enquiry were examined in criminal trial – Appellant was acquitted after full consideration of prosecution – Charges were not just similar but identical and evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same – Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations – A court of law will not be carried away by mere use of such terminology – Court in judicial review is obliged to examine substance of judgment and not go by form of expression used – Impugned orders quashed – Appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. (Paras 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Fact not proved – A fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering matters before it, court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under circumstances of particular case, to act upon supposition that it does not exist – A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved”. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
Following two questions arise for consideration:
a) Whether dismissal of appellant from service pursuant to departmental enquiry was justified?
b) On facts of the case, what is effect of acquittal, ordered by Appellate Judge in criminal trial, on order of dismissal passed in departmental enquiry?
Findings of Court:
Order of termination dated 31.03.2004; order of Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Ram Lal (the appellant) was a Constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 9th Battalion, Jodhpur. He was appointed on 15.12.1991. A First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered on 02.09.2022 against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Soon thereafter, on 02.04.2003, a charge-sheet in a departmental enquiry was also issued.
3. The identical allegation in both the proceedings was that the Appellant altered his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8th standard marksheet. It was alleged that this was done to project himself as having attained majority at the time of the recruitment. The appellant denied the charges.
4. Asked about the overwriting in the application, the appellant stated that it was possible that in the application form he might have written initially as 21.04.1974 and thereafter corrected it to 21.04.1972. He however maintained that his date of birth was 21.04.1972.
5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of 31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain.
6. At the criminal trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years’ imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur [‘Appellate Judge’] vide judgment dated 24.08.2007, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant.
7. The appellant, thereafter, represented for his reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August, 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31.03.2004, the order of the Appellate Authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the above-said orders.
8. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Questions for consideration:
9. The following two questions arise for consideration:
(b) On the facts of the case, what is the effect of the acquittal, ordered by the Appellate Judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry?
10. We have heard Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned counsel for the State. Learned counsels have reiterated their contentions before the Courts below.
Legal Position:
11. We have examined both the questions independently. We are conscious of the fact that a writ court’s power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. [See State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 INSC 766 : 2023 (11) Scale 530]. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere. [See United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 IN
(1) Termination – Mere acquittal by criminal court will not confer on employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement – However, if charges in departmental enquiry and criminal court a....
Acquittal by benefit of doubt in criminal case does not constitute honourable acquittal and does not vitiate disciplinary dismissal for falsified date of birth, given differing proof standards.
Acquittal in criminal case on identical facts as departmental proceedings, after full trial disproving charges on merits, requires setting aside disciplinary punishment despite differing proof standa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice and impose proportionate punishment, considering the discretion....
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the employer, and failure to provide adequate evidence can invalidate dismissal orders.
The court established that discrepancies in personal information provided during the appointment process can justify dismissal from service, and that the High Court's role is limited to reviewing the....
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to reinstatement in disciplinary proceedings unless charges and evidence are identical.
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
