Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically nullify departmental proceedings, and the absence of a Presenting Officer does not necessarily render the proceedings unfair.

Headnote:
Departmental Proceedings - CRPF Act, 1949 - The court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order of dismissal from service. The court held that the departmental proceedings and criminal trial, even though on the same charges, are to be judged with different parameters. The appellant's acquittal in the criminal trial did not set aside the entire departmental proceedings. The court also found no merit in the argument that the departmental proceedings were unfair due to the absence of a Presenting Officer, citing relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Constable in CRPF, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings found him guilty of charges related to absence from duty, consumption of liquor, and resisting arrest. He filed a writ appeal against the dismissal, arguing that his acquittal in a criminal trial should set aside the departmental proceedings and that the proceedings were unfair due to the absence of a Presenting Officer.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's acquittal in the criminal trial did not nullify the departmental proceedings and that the absence of a Presenting Officer did not render the proceedings unfair.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's acquittal in the criminal trial should set aside the departmental proceedings. 2. Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer rendered the departmental proceedings unfair.
Ratio Decidendi: The departmental proceedings and criminal trial are to be judged with different parameters. Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically nullify the departmental proceedings. The absence of a Presenting Officer did not render the departmental proceedings unfair.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J. - Heard Mr. UK. Das, learned legal aid counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for all the respondents.

2. This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2019 passed in WP(C) No.219/2012 (Promod Malia -VsUnion of India & 3 Ors.), whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner before this Court was a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which he had joined in the year 1986. In November, 1995, while he was posted at Dibrugarh, an incident occurred at 7:45 PM on 07.11.1995. The petitioner and one of his colleagues, Ram Kishan Singh, were found missing from their duties and after some time they were seen sneaking inside the room in an inebriated state. When they were questioned and they were to be taken to the hospital for medical examination, they resisted. At the relevant time, both the Constables, including the present appellant/writ petitioner, were armed. Shri Ram Kishan Singh was somehow over powered but the appellant/writ petitioner continued to resist arrest and in fact fired as many as fourteen rounds in air from his automatic weapon. He was ultimately apprehended and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them. In the disciplinary proceeding, three charges were levelled against them, which are as follows:-

Statement of Articles of charges framed against No.861241270 CT P. Malia and No.911000345 CT Ram Kishan Singh OF B/111 BN. C.R.P.F.

Article I

That the said No.861241270 CT P. Malia and No.911000345 CT Ramkishan Singh of B/111 Bn, CRPF, were found absent from Check Roll on 7.11.95 at about 1945 Hrs in B/111. Dibrugarh Location. Thus they have been committed an offence punishable under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in their capacity as a member of the force.

Article II

That they are joined in Roll Call from the back side of the row with Consumed Liquor. On seeking this by the OC. S/111 and ordered for medical examination to both pers to his Coy 2 I/C INSP V.R. Patil, at the time both pers challenged to kill the Coy personnel if any body tried to take them for medical examination and CT P. Malia fired 14 rounds in the Air from his personal weapon.

Thus they have been committed an offence punishable under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in their capacity as a member of the force.

Article III

That during absence from Check Roll Call both pers consumed liquor and joined in roll call from the back side of the row. OC asked them the reasons for their absence and same time he detected both were in drunken condition. OC. B/111 has ordered for their Medical examination at the time both pers challenged to kill the Coy personnel if any body tried to take them to Civil Hospital for medical examination. Since both of the CTs were in possession of their personnel SLR immediately OC went to the lines, where he himself overpowered CT Ram Kishan and taken back his rifle and CT P. Malia fired 14 rounds in the Air. Thus they have been committed an offence punishable under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949.

4. After a departmental enquiry, all the charges were found to be proved against the delinquent Constables and subsequently they were dismissed from service vide order dated 20.11.1996. The appellant/writ petitioner admittedly never filed any statutory departmental appeal against the said order immediately after his dismissal but in the criminal trial (which was also going on against the present appellant), when he was acquitted by the trial Court of charges under Section 307 IPC on 09.10.2009, he filed an "undated" appeal before the appellate authority, which was received by the appellate authority on 13.02.2010. The appeal itself was filed after a delay of more than thirteen years. The appeal did not find favour of the appellate authority and it was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant/w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2021 Supreme(Gau) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATISudhanshu Dhulia, Manash Ranjan Pathak, JJ.Promod Malia - AppellantVersusUnion Of India - RespondentWrit Appeal No. 56 of 2021Decided On : 24-02-2021

Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically nullify departmental proceedings, and the absence of a Presenting Officer does not necessarily render the proceedings unfair.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manash Ranjan Pathak, JJ.
Promod Malia - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 56 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2021