Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 458
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PRATAP KUMAR RAY AND MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI, JJ.
Md. Khairul Alam - Appellants
Vs
State - Respondents
W.P.S.T. No. 718 of 2007
Decided on: March 31, 2011
Md. Basir Layek, Murari Mohon Das, Tanusri Pal
There is no bar to initiate a disciplinary proceeding even after acquittal from a criminal proceeding.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - Disciplinary Proceeding - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - Police Constable involved in two criminal cases - Acquitted in one case due to compounding of offences - Second case pending - Departmental proceeding initiated during pendency of second case - Punishment of dismissal imposed - Whether valid - Held, yes - No bar to initiate disciplinary proceeding even after acquittal from criminal proceeding - Departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution have different purposes - Departmental enquiry relates to conduct or breach of duty of delinquent officer - Standard of proof not as high as in criminal trial - Departmental enquiry can proceed simultaneously with criminal trial unless charge in criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
Fact of the Case:
A police constable was involved in two criminal cases. He was acquitted in the first case due to compounding of offences. The second case was pending trial. During the pendency of the second case, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge of involvement in the two criminal cases. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and dismissed him from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there is no bar to initiate a disciplinary proceeding even after acquittal from a criminal proceeding. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service efficiency of public service. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence is also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. The departmental enquiry can proceed simultaneously with the criminal trial unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
Issues: 1. Whether a charge memo could be issued in a disciplinary proceeding relating to involvement of writ petitioner in the first criminal case where from he was acquitted due to application for compounding offences and departmental proceeding could be concluded on that charge. 2. Whether the charge memo relating to involvement in second criminal proceeding which was pending could be the subject matter of any disciplinary proceeding and prior to judgement passed in the said criminal proceeding when dismissal order was passed by concluding the departmental proceeding, whether such dismissal order could be quashed or set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no bar to initiate a disciplinary proceeding even after acquittal from a criminal proceeding. 2. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. 3. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service efficiency of public service. 4. The standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. 5. The evidence is also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act. 6. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by the Evidence Act. 7. The departmental enquiry can proceed simultaneously with the criminal trial unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed.
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
1. HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. ASSAILING the order dated 4th May, 2007 passed in O.A. No. 1613 of 2001 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, this writ application has been filed.
The impugned order reads such: "4.5.2007 -This is an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, filed at the instance of Md. Khairul Alam, petitioner herein, paying for a declaration that the enquiry initiated against the applicant through Proceeding No. 17 dated 06.12.1999 should not be given any effect or further effect with further prayer praying for not to interfere with the service of the present applicant. Subsequently, after taking leave of this Tribunal, the petitioner has filed one supplementary application challenging the final order passed in the aforesaid departmental proceeding praying for quashing the same. The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows: The petitioner is an employee of the West Bengal Police having No.C/3657, now posted at Calcutta Airport, and he was discharging his duties and responsibilities quite efficiently to the satisfaction of his superiors. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in a case being Bharatpur Police Case No.2(6) 88 under section 148/149/326/ 506 of IPC, but the said case has been amicably settled before the Court of the Learned Sub/Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandi on 02.08.1988. But after lapse of almost 11 years, one departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of the aforesaid Article of charges, which by then became stale, and in the aforesaid proceeding, proper procedure was not followed, and the Enquiring Officer compelled the application to put his signature on the papers, wherein purported two declarations were obtained from him one was to the effect that the applicant was unwilling to produce defence witness, and secondly applicant was unwilling to submit written statement of defence. And subsequently, relying on those declarations, enquiry proceeding was concluded, and the finding were made against the petitioner, when it is quite well settled position that on the self-same cause of action, departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding cannot go side by side, and thereafter in utter violation of the procedural norms, provisional order as also the final order have been passed. It has further been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment, as inflicted in the present case, was passed in violation of Rule 856 of PRB, and the punishment is absolutely disproportionate, and as such, it should be interfered with. Hence, this prayer. This application, however, has been resisted on behalf of the State Respondents by filing reply, denying all the material contentions raised by the petitioner in his application. It has, inter alia, been contended on their behalf that when the petitioner was posted at D.A.P., North 24 Parganas, he went to his native village and got himself involved in Bharatpur P.S. Case No. 02 dated 20.06.1988 under sections 148/149/326/506, and he was forwarded to Kandi Court on 21.06.1988, and he was released on bail. Again on 15.11.1994, he was involved in Bharatpur P.S. Case No.78 dated 15.11.1994 under sections 147/148/149/323/324/427/307 of IPC and % of ES Act. In connection with the aforesaid case, he was arrested and forwarded to Kandi Court on 21.11.1994, and the above case, he was remanded to jail custody till 26.1.1994. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Proceeding No. 17 was initiated against him, wherein, Bangshi Badan Mondal, CLA of North 24 Parganas was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and the concerned Enquiry Officer, maintaining all formalities, concluded the proceeding of the enquiry and submitted findings to the Respondent Authority stating that the charge against the petitioner has been proved, and the petitioner was given all possible opportunities to defend his case. It was furthe
