Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 441
High Court Of Calcutta
K. J. Sengupta And Manik Mohan Sarkar JJ.
BISWANATH HAZRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
WPST 583 Of 2005
Decided On : 06/20/2007
A.KHAN, Asok Nath Ghosh
Employer's right to initiate departmental proceedings after criminal acquittal, standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, and the importance of reliable evidence and adherence to natural justice principles.
Headnote:
NONE - Dismissal from Services - IPC 448/354/376 - The court discussed the charges under IPC 448/354/376 and the standard of proof in criminal vs. departmental proceedings. The court emphasized the employer's right to initiate departmental proceedings even after acquittal in criminal proceedings and the importance of trust and integrity in the master-servant relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was acquitted of criminal charges but dismissed from services based on the same incident. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, arguing lack of evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the employer had the right to initiate departmental proceedings despite the acquittal in criminal proceedings. However, it found the Enquiry Officer's findings inconsistent and based on unreliable evidence, leading to the petitioner's unlawful victimization.
Issues: Validity of dismissal based on departmental proceedings after criminal acquittal, adherence to natural justice principles, sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer can initiate departmental proceedings even after criminal acquittal, but the standard of proof is preponderance of probability. The Enquiry Officer's findings must be based on reliable evidence and adhere to natural justice principles.
Final Decision: The court set aside the dismissal order, reinstated the petitioner in service, awarded 50% back wages, and held the respondent authority liable for costs.
( 2 ) IT is a matter of 2005 and it is a case of dismissal from services. On 19th september, 2004 direction for filing affidavit was given. On 16th February, 2006 department noted that no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of affidavit-in-opposition has been supplied to him and he has made affidavit-in-reply ready.
( 3 ) WHEN there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents nor they file any opposition, we can* take up the matter for hearing. In our view, at this stage no such affidavit is required as all facts have already been placed before the learned Tribunal and relevant documents have been annexed to this application. Therefore, it hardly matters whether this Court gets any opposition or not.
( 4 ) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner joined service as a constable in or about October, 1971. Inapril, 1987 while he was posted at Noapara Police station, a police case was started against the petitioner being Noapara PS case No. 3 dated 4. 4. 87 under section 448/354/376 of IPC. On investigation charge was framed and the petitioner was proceeded with before the regular criminal Court and the regular Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner and found him not guilty of the charge under section 376 of the IPC levelled against him and thereafter he was discharged.
( 5 ) IT appears from the judgment of the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore 24-Parganas that the trial was conducted under section 376 of IPC and not any other counts. It further appears from the judgment that there were 12 witnesses including police officers. The PW. l, de facto complainant was declared hostile and she denied in her evidence that she was raped by the accused. The learned judge recorded that there was no eye-witness apart from the de facto complainant. After acquittal from the aforesaid charges, the petitioner was proceeded with departmentally with the following charges:
" (1) While, attached to Noapara Police Station, District (North) 24-Parganas, on 1. 4. 87, 2. 4. 87, 3. 4. 87 around midnight, you surreptitiously visited the residential quarter of SI S. S. Chairit, 0/c Noapara PS without his permission and any authority. You called Kumari Asha Baidya (aged 14 years) d/o Bhirendra Nath Baidya, village Malangapara, PS Swarupnagar, district (North) 24-Parganas the maid servant of the said 0/c and compelled her under threat to open the main entrance of the quarter. Then you entered into her bed room and outraged her female modesty under threat and allurement. (2) You, again, on the midnight of 4. 4. 87 entered into the quarter of SI S. S. Chairit, 0/c Noapara PS without her permission and lay on the bed of kumari Asha Baidya, the maid servant of SI S. S. Chairit along with her. Thereby, you developed an illicit relationship with her. Specific case vide noapara PS case No. 3 dated 4. 4. 87 under section 448/354/376 IPC was started against you on the complaint of Kumari Asha Baidya. As a result, you were arrested and forwarded to Court on 4. 4. 87. "
( 6 ) THE petitioner replied to the said charges denying all allegations. An enquiry offcer was appointed to enquire into the charges.
( 7 ) THE said victim girl was also cited as one of the witnesses, and that apart, other police officials and constables were cited as witnesses in the departmental proceedings along with G. D. entey, FIR report of Sri S. R. Paul dated 3. 1. 91 and the petition dated 17th November, 1987 of Asha Baidya.
( 8 ) AFTER taking evidence and analysis thereof, the enquiry officer came to the following findings:
"a. Regarding Charge No. l. The only witness of this charge is PW. 1 who too turned hostile and because of the compelling social condition she submitted a prayer to the D. M. North 24-Parganas for withdrawal of the case. Hence, this charge of trespass and outraging of female modesty could not be proved beyond d
