Honourable Acquittal: Accused acquitted on 'benefit of doubt' is not honourable acquittal and will not be entitled to reinstatement.
Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.
.png "Honourable Acquittal: Accused acquitted on 'benefit of doubt' is not honourable acquittal and will not be entitled to reinstatement.")
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court
consisting of Justices, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia have set aside the orders of the Learned Single
Judge and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, who had passed
an order of quashing the dismissal from service and reinstatement of the
Respondent in the police service with back wages solely on the finding that “the
acquittal of the respondent is not on honourable
but an acquittal give due to a benefit of doubt”.
The
Respondent was convicted under Section 392 IPC
and Section 3/25of the Arms Act for allegedly committing a criminal
offence and an act of gross indiscipline.
A
departmental proceeding was also initiated against the respondent, a constable.
The respondent challenged the said order of conviction before the Sessions
Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court giving
benefit of doubts.
Department
enquiry was initiated against the Respondent alongwith trial case in the Trial
Court on three charges supported by examination of fourteen prosecution
witnesses and also examination of nine defence witnesses. Ultimately al three
charges were proved and he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal
was challenged by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also
dismissed. Then a review was filed and again the same was dismissed.
Thereafter,
the respondent challenged the conviction before the Sessions Judge, who set
aside and acquitted him in the criminal case by the Session Judge. After his
acquittal, the respondent filed a writ Petition before the Learned Single Judge
of High Court for reinstatement. The main ground for reinstatement was made in
view of acquittal on the same charges faced in criminal trial and disciplinary
enquiry who allowed his writ by quashing the dismissal order with 50% of back
wages. The order was challenged in the Division Bench by State of Rajasthan which
was dismissed. So the State approached the Supreme Court against the order of
reinstatement passed by Rajasthan High Court.
The
Supreme Court agreed with the view of High Court that since the Respondent has
been acquitted by the criminal Court on the same set of facts and charges on which
he had faced a departmental proceedings, the orders passed in departmental
proceedings are liable to be quashed and he must be reinstated in service.
Respondent/constable
had committed an act of gross indiscipline and negligence as well as
dereliction of duties and of misbehaviour and misconduct and all this had
tarnished the image of Rajasthan police in public. Thus under the
circumstances, the delinquent officer cannot be retained in Police Service –
counsel for the State of Rajasthan argued.
It
was also argued that the acquittal by the criminal Court is of no consequence
as far as departmental proceedings are concerned.
A
question that arose before the Court was whether the respondent can be
reinstated in service for the reason he has been acquitted by a criminal Court
on the same set of charges he faced in departmental proceedings.
Before
delivering a judgment, the Court relied on the cases such as Capt. M.Paul
Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Union of India vs Sitaram
Mishra
A
departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding. The
fundamental difference between the 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 the prosecution has
to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”. In short, the difference between
the two proceedings would lie in the nature of evidence and the degree of its
scrutiny. The two forums therefore run at different levels. For this reason,
this Court has consistently held that merely because a person has been acquitted
in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.
The reliance placed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court on the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr is completely different in its unique fact and it does not lay down a law of universal application – Apex Court observed.
The
Court took note on one more decision held in Union
of India v. Sitaram Mishra
that merely because the employee was acquitted
by the criminal Court it does not mean that he ipso-facto
that he is entitled to be reinstated in service, since he was dismissed from service after facing a disciplinary
proceeding. The reason being that the disciplinary proceedings are governed by a different standard
of proof, which are different from what is applied in a criminal proceeding. Whereas, in a
criminal trial the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and in a
departmental proceeding, the charges have to be proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities.
Also Read:
In the above case a distinction has also been drawn by this Court between a “criminal offence” and “misconduct”. One has to be proved in a criminal court, the other in a departmental proceeding, and though both may arise from the same set of facts, yet there is a clear distinction between the two and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial, it would not amount to a reversal of the findings of “misconduct”, which were arrived in a departmental proceeding.
The
Hon’ble supreme Court view that the High Court has fell into error by drawing
inference from the decision in case of Capt.
M. Paul Anthony which is completely different fact as compared with the
present case.
The position of law was well explained in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd (2005) passed by three Judge Bench of Supreme Court. The judgment reads -
“11….. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules.............. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'…..”
Thus,
according to the Supreme Court, the High Court has committed error by
interfering with the order of Disciplinary Authority of the Rajasthan Police.
It is the Disciplinary Authority which is equipped to reach a finding whether ‘misconduct’
has been committed.
Since
the acquittal was on a technicality or an acquittal given because of ‘benefit
of doubt’ is not an honourable acquittal, will not be entitled to reinstatement
– the Apex Court viewed.
Thus appeal by State was
allowed and the order of reinstatement by both Single Judge and Division Bench
of High Court was set aside.
Case:
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Phool Singh Civil Appeal No. 5930 Of 2022
Date of Judgment: 2.09.2022
Click here to download judgment
.png&description=Honourable Acquittal: Accused acquitted on 'benefit of doubt' is not honourable acquittal and will not be entitled to reinstatement.){kind=link}
0 Comments