RAVI SHANKER JHA, ARUN PALLI
Davinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arun Palli, J.
This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 18.08.2022, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.
3. The appellant was appointed as Constable in Haryana Police on 08.02.1984 and thereafter promoted as Head Constable, and then E/ASI. Pursuant to registration of FIR No.23, dated 11.07.2011, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer, vide a detailed report (P-4), concluded that he had taken bribe, while he was posted as Traffic Staff at Faridabad, from a scrap-dealer (Rakesh Chand) and was caught red-handed by the Vigilance team. Accordingly, the punishing authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant dismissed him from service on 04.07.2013 (P-7). The appeal filed by him against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Commissioner of Police on 22.10.2013 (P-9). And, even the revision petition preferred by him was dismissed by the Director General of Police, vide order dated 25.03.2
The acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude disciplinary action in departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof and burden of proof are different in the two proceedings.
An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude departmental punishment unless specific exceptions in the applicable rules are satisfied.
Departmental proceedings must adhere to fair process, especially post-acquittal, ensuring that dismissals are justified and not arbitrary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.