SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 871

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Phool Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 11195 of 2021)
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Verma, Adv. Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajni Kant, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. Mohd. Zeeshan Anjum, Adv. Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – Whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal court prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Difference between two proceedings would lie in nature of evidence and degree of its scrutiny.
(2) Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.

Headnote:

Service Law – Dismissal – Reversal by High Court – Acquittal in criminal case – Departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – Fundamental difference between two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal court prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Difference between two proceedings would lie in nature of evidence and degree of its scrutiny – The two Fora run at different levels – Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service – It is Disciplinary Authority which is best equipped to reach a finding whether a misconduct has been committed – Prime concern of a Judge should be whether such a finding has been arrived after following a fair procedure, following principles of natural justice and fairness – Acquittal of respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to benefit of doubt – Impugned Orders of High Court set aside. (Paras 8, 12, 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:

Respondent had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable, in the year 1987. State of Rajasthan is in appeal before this Court against the order dated 09.09.2020, passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench). By impugned order the Division Bench has upheld the order of Single Judge which had allowed writ petition of the present respondent, quashing his dismissal from service.

Question before this Court is only to see whether the respondent can be reinstated in service for the reason that now on the same set of charges he has been acquitted by a criminal court?

Findings of Court:

In present case, Single Judge as well as Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court were clearly wrong in interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority of the Rajasthan Police.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before this Court against the order dated 09.09.2020, passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench). By the impugned order the Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the present respondent, quashing his dismissal from service.

2. Respondent Phool Singh had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable, in the year 1987. The same year, while he was posted at the Police Station Mania, District Dholpur (Rajasthan), he allegedly committed a criminal offence, apart from an act of gross indiscipline. On the fateful day of 15.10.1987, he was wandering around the town in the evening, in company of one Lokman. Respondent was off duty but in police uniform, when he allegedly caught one Mahesh Kumar and demanded Rs.100/-from him. On his refusal, Mahesh Kumar was asked to show the papers of his motorcycle and when he failed to show these papers, Phool Singh took hold of this motorcycle, and then tried to run away with it. Meanwhile, due to the alarm raised by Mahesh Kumar a crowd also gathers in support of Mahesh Kumar. At this point, Phool Singh is alleged to have waved a gun (“Pachpera”), towards the crowd but was nevertheless chased by the crowd, till Phool Singh succeeds in getting inside his house, which was nearby. Once inside his house, he fires from his gun which injures the inmates of the house, i.e., his family members, besides damaging the property. All this results in lodging of an FIR (No. 146/1987) against the respondent, at Police Station Mania, under Sections 392, 307 IPC and Section 34 of Police Act read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After investigation in the case a chargesheet was filed against Phool Singh and Lokman. Ultimately charges were framed under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act by the Trial Court. The Trial Court then convicts Phool Singh, under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentences him for one-year rigorous imprisonment and fine for each of the above two offences, with default stipulations, vide order dated 31.03.1994. The co-accused Lokman is acquitted. This order was challenged by Phool Singh in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, allows the appeal, and sets aside the order of the Trial Court, giving “benefit of doubt” to the accused.

3. Meanwhile, a departmental proceeding had also been initiated against the delinquent constable on three charges, which are as follows:-

    “CHARGE NO. l :-In the year 1987 when on 15.10.87 you, Shri Phool Singh Constable No.386 was deputed with Police Station Mania at that time while off duty as Guard time at around 3:00 PM dressed in police uniform you had consumed alcohol and under the influence of alcohol being highly intoxicated continued to roam around in Kasba Mania and snatched away licensed Pachpcra (rifle) of Shivram Kachhi.

    CHARGE NO.2:- On 15.10.87, you in a drunken state dressed in uniform alongwith Lokman Gurjar went to Bedia Kasba Mohalla where being off duty and without any authority you demanded for documents pertaining to Rajdoot Motorcycle from Mahesh Kumar S/o Shiv Hare Brahmin R/o Patpara Dholpur and also indecently abused and demanded for a bribe of Rs.100/- and forcibly looted and took away Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJD 7722 from Mahesh Kumar and due to which a lot of people gathered and they chased behind you.

    CHARGE NO.3 :-On being chased by public you ran and reached your quarter in the compound of Police Station Mania and in a drunk state fired in your self-defence inside your house from the Pachpera snatched away by you from Shiv Ram but the gunshot hit the balcony in the chowk of the quarter and as a result broken pieces of balcony fell on your family members and due to which your family members got injured and the said incident led to the registration of FIR No.146 dated 15.10.87 against you u/s 392, 307/34 of Police Act & 3/25 of


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top