Supreme Court: Employee dismissed after disciplinary proceedings cannot be reinstated merely because he was acquitted in related criminal case

The Supreme Court in the case State of Rajasthan vs Phool Singh observed that an employee who was dismissed from service pursuant to disciplinary enquiry cannot be reinstated merely because he is acquitted on the same set of charges and facts by giving benefit of doubt by a criminal court.

The bench comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service.

In the present case, the Phool Singh had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him alleging that (1) he had consumed alcohol (2) indecently abused and demanded for a bribe of Rs.100/- from a person, (3) fired at public which was chasing him. Thus, all the three charges were ultimately proved against him he was dismissed from service. An FIR was also lodged against him under Sections 392, 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 34 of Police Act read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act in this regard. Though, he was acquitted in the Trial court, the Appellate Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt. After his acquittal, an application was moved by him before the authorities for his reinstatement and a writ petition was filled by him, since the authorities did not respond favourably. While taking note of his acquittal, the Rajasthan High Court allowed his plea and directed his reinstatement.

In an appeal, an issue was raised by the State weather he can be reinstated in service for the reason that now on the same set of charges he has been acquitted by a criminal court?

Firstly, the bench noticed that the judgement in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr (1999) 3 SCC 679, which was relied on by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Also, the court added that there are a large number of cases where it was consistently held that the two proceedings, i.e., criminal and departmental, are entirely different and merely because in a criminal trial one has been acquitted that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service when one has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding.

The Court observed that it is true that this Court, apart from the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony, has in a few cases not interfered with the reinstatement of an employee and as result of disciplinary proceedings, who was dismissed and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but in such cases were that in almost in all such cases again the reasons which weighed with the Court, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal which is given because of “benefit of doubt””.

The Court while taking note of the fact that the acquittal is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”.

Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and the High Court judgement was set aside.

The post Supreme Court: Employee dismissed after disciplinary proceedings cannot be reinstated merely because he was acquitted in related criminal case appeared first on The Daily Guardian.