2017 Supreme(Bom) 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.A. SAYED AND M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
A.D. Padhey of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant - Petitioner
Vs.
State Bank of India - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2003
Decided On : 31-07-2017

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Disciplinary proceedings.-Dismissal of employee by appointing authority on basis of enquiry report of I.O. justified.

       It is well-settled that the proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in different fields. The standards of proof and evidence required in the two proceedings are also different. The disciplinary proceedings are concerned with ensuring that the employees conform to the rules of conduct which are prescribed by the employer and maintain discipline in relation to their employment. The disciplinary proceedings are to weed out persons who are considered unworthy of being a part of the employer organization. The criminal proceedings are with an object to punish the offender. The law is well-settled. Acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising disciplinary power in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental inquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case by the Special Court, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bank. Court is, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the petitioner that since he was acquitted by a Criminal Court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.

       Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings.-Since criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings operates in different fields hence acquittal by Criminal Court would not debar employer to exercise disciplinary power.

       It is well-settled that the proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings operate in different fields. The standards of proof and evidence required in the two proceedings are also different. The disciplinary proceedings are to weed out persons who are considered unworthy of being a part of the employer organization. The criminal proceedings are with an object to punish the offender. The law is well-settled. Acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising disciplinary power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental inquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability."

       Acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case by the Special Court, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bank. The charges against the petitioner were not casual in nature but were serious. The Disciplinary Authority has taken all these aspects into consideration and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record. The inquiry has been conducted in due observance of the principle of natural justice. In these circumstances, therefore, there is no infirmity or perversity with the view taken by the authorities.