Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K. Tare, C.J., R. J. Bhave and M. L. Malik, JJ.
HARINARAYAN RAMRATAN DUBEY KHANDWA
Versus
STATE OF M P
Decided On : Mar 05,1975
(2) Constitution of India - Art. 311 (2) - departmental enquiry on facts on which a police officer acquitted by a Criminal Court - when permissible - limits on the power to hold departmental enquiry.
As per Regulation 241 of the Police Regulations if the acquittal by the Criminal Court be on a technical ground or if the facts established at the trial show that his retention in Government service is undesirable, the departmental action can be taken against an employee of the Police Department even though he may have been acquitted by a Criminal Court. Otherwise, Regulation 241 of the C P and Berar Police Regulations would be a bar to the holding of a departmental enquiry against a Police Officer in respect of a charge, which has been the subject matter of a criminal offence. Of course, it is open to the departmental authorities to proceed departmentally in respect of a different charge, although it may arise out of the same set of facts. But the bar is against holding a departmental enquiry on the sole charge, which was the subject-matter of a Criminal case. 1967 Service Law Reports 228 (SC) relied on. [Para 10
A departmental enquiry can be held against a member of the Police Service if the acquittal is on the ground of giving benefit of doubt to the accused. If the judgment of the Criminal Court itself indicates that the Police Officer is unfit to be retained in police service, a departmental enquiry can certainly be held and his services can be dispensed with. [Para 12
Therefore, acquittal in a Criminal Court will not be a bar to the holding of a departmental enquiry. But, there will be limitations to the departmental enquiry. One salient principle will have to be followed in the departmental enquiry. Although the departmental enquiry may proceed on the same facts, but it cannot proceed on the same charge, which was the subject-matter of a criminal offence Similarly, a departmental authority cannot be permitted to sit in judgment over the decision of the Criminal Court as an appellate authority and to pronounce a contrary view. If the acquittal be on a technical ground; in that event, the departmental authority can certainly punish the employee by coming to its own conclusions. If, however, the acquittal be by giving the benefit of doubt, or the Criminal Court judgment itself gives an indication that the retention of an employee is undesirable; in that event also, the departmental authority would be free to take disciplinary action and to come to its own conclusions. This would be the limitation within which the departmental authority would have to act. [Para 14
For getting benefit of doubt, the prosecution must establish some incriminating circumstances on the basis of which it might be said that the accused, in all probability, may be the author of the crime. It is the establishment of some incriminating circumstances that is material. The disciplinary authority was thus not right in holding that this was a case where the accused had been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt But this was a case where the prosecution bad failed to establish, either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence, any incriminating factors against the present petitioner, which, if inclusive, could give accused the benefit of doubt. [Para 22
The departmental authorities had no power or jurisdiction to punish the petitioner for an identical charge in respect of which the Sessions Court had acquitted him due to the prosecution failure to prove its case. Regulations No. 241 of the C.P. and Berar Police Regulations will squarely govern the instant case. 1958 JLJ 822, 1967 SLR 228 (SC) AIR 1956 Punj. 106, AIR 1962 Orissa 125, AIR 1965 Mad. 502, AIR 1967 Mad. 315 relied on. AIR 1966 Guj. 233 dissented from. 1951 NLJ 93, 1971 JLJ 357 and AIR 1967 Mysore 220 referred to. [Para 24
( 1. ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee of the Police Department, challenges the order of the Superintendent of Police, dated 23-4-1969 (petitioners Annexure-F), the appellate order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 28-2-1970 (petitioners Annexure-H) and the order of the Inspector General of Police (date not mentioned; petitioners Annexure-I) on the ground that the petitioner having been acquitted in a criminal case for an alleged offence under section 302, indian Penal Code in connection with the alleged murder of his wife, could not have been proceeded against depart mentally in respect of the same charge.
( 2. ) THIS case had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, which, by order, dated 9-12-1971, referred the case to a Full Bench on the ground that it was necessary to consider the Division Bench case of the Nagpur high Court, namely, Ramdayalsingh v. Harnamsingh and others (1951 N L J 593.), wherein, relying on Regulation No. 241 of the Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulations, which are still in force in the State, the said Division Bench laid down that a departmental enquiry would be barred on the same charge of which a Police officer or a police employee may have been acquitted by a Criminal Court. The division Bench thought it necessary that the question how far the Police Regulation No. 241 bars a departmental enquiry would be a matter, which would need reconsideration. Therefore, the entire case was referred by the Division Bench to a Full Bench for disposal.
( 3. ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk in the office of the superintendent of Police, Khandwa, in the year 1964. Thereafter, the clerical cadre was designated as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) by a general order of the Inspector General of Police, in 1967. The petitioner was married to one, kiranbai in the year 1965. Kiranbai was killed on the night intervening the 13th and 14th of November, 1967. On that fateful night, as usual, the petitioner and his wife were sleeping in the same room. The petitioner was suspected of the murder of his wife and, therefore, he was prosecuted for an alleged offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1968, in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa. During the Sessions Trial, smt. Shantibai, mother of the petitioner, Ramratan, father of the petitioner, rameshprasad, brother of the petitioner and Smt. Kamlabai, sister-in-law of the petitioner were examined as prosecution witnesses, amongst other witnesses. One, Smt. Savitribai, grand mother of the deceased Kiranbai, Diwakar, Compounder, Dr. Kaskhediker and Constable Janardan were also examined as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment, dated 22-7-1968 (petitioners Annexure -A) acquitted him of the offence charged with. The petitioner was, therefore, charged with the murder of his wife on the said night. A little later we shall examine the reasoning of the learned Judge acquitting the petitioner of the charge of murder.
( 4. ) THE Superintendent of Police, by order, dated 26-7-1968 (petitioners annexure-B) suspended the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge by giving him the benefit of doubt. In that view, a charge for the deparmental enquiry was framed against the petitioner on 19-10-1968 (petitioners Annexure-C ). We may reproduce the said charge as follows:
( 5. ) IN answer to the charge at the departmental enquiry the petitioner submitted his reply, dated 3-10-1968 (petitioners Annexure -D ). However, the departmental authorities, by the orders impugned, rejected the petitioners contention and dismissed him from service holding that he was not a fit person to be retained in the Police Department. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
