Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Amrik Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.23349 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Parvesh K. Saini, Sr.Panel Counsel for the Respondents-UOI.

Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not guarantee reinstatement in service due to differing standards of proof in departmental inquiries.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Reinstatement of employee - Dismissal from service upheld despite acquittal in criminal trial - The court emphasized that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings differs from that in criminal trials, where the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while the former relies on preponderance of evidence. The court noted that the acquittal was based on technical grounds and did not warrant reinstatement. (Paras 9, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Departmental Proceedings - Distinction from Criminal Proceedings - The court reiterated that departmental inquiries aim to maintain discipline and efficiency, while criminal prosecutions serve to punish violations of law. The findings in departmental proceedings are not automatically negated by an acquittal in criminal trials. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.06.2015 (Annexure P-7) whereby his representation seeking reinstatement has been rejected.

2. The petitioner joined CRPF on 02.09.1994 as Safai Karmachari and he was appointed as Constable (GD) in Group Centre (GC), Jalandhar w.e.f. 01.01.1997. On 30.06.2010, while he was posted in Group Centre, Jalandhar, he obtained permission from Guard Commissioner to leave his place of duty to pick up his son from Station Hospital, Jalandhar. He went to Kartarpur (Dhilwan) without prior permission of competent authority. He, while on his way, was arrested by Punjab Police alleging commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act. The police after completing investigation filed its report alleging commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, the respondent initiated departmental proceedings. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and disciplinary authority vide order dated 04.06.2011 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before DIGP, GC, CRPF, Jalandhar who vide order dated 28.07.2011 dismissed the same. The petitioner came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar. After acquittal, the petitioner preferred representation before respondent seeking his reinstatement on the ground of acquittal. The respondent by impugned order dated 17.06.2015 rejected representation of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted by trial Court and on the date of dismissal, he was having in his credit 17 years service, thus, his matter needs to be considered sympathetically and commiserately. The respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that yardstick for criminal and departmental proceedings is different. The standard of proof in both the proceedings is different. The respondent has not considered judgment of acquittal in totality and by reading last paragraph of judgment has rejected claim of the petitioner. The respondent was bound to consider findings of trial Court.

In support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1618.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been honorably acquitted and he has been extended benefit of doubt. The competent authority has thoroughly examined judgment of trial Court and thereafter impugned order has been passed.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The conceded position emerging from record is that on 30.06.2010 petitioner was apprehended by Punjab Police alleging commission of offence under NDPS Act. Thereafter, on the same day, an FIR No.125 dated 30.06.2010 under Section 18/61 of NDPS Act, 1985 came to be registered against the petitioner. Pursuant to registration of FIR, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After considering the reply and contentions raised by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 04.06.2011 imposed penalty of 'dismissal from service'. Against the order of dismissal, petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal before DIGP, GC, CRPF, Jalandhar.

7. The petitioner in the afore-mentioned FIR came to be acquitted by trial Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2015. On acquittal, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-department seeking reinstatement, however, his representation was dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2015. The relevant extracts of the judgment dated 19.02.2015 and order dated 17.06.2015 are reproduced as below :

Judgment dated 19.02.2015

21. From the judgments referred above, it is