The Managing Director, Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Paniar, Gurdaspur v. Nanak Singh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Relief.” The Trial Court held the impugned order to be legal and valid and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The first Appellate Court, however, reversed the said finding and accepted the appeal and accordingly allowed the suit. The first Appellate Court was impressed with…
Judgment
Nanak Singh, plaintiff-respondent, had filed this suit to challenge the order dated 7.8.2001, dismissing him from service on REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: the ground that the same was illegal, erroneous, invalid and against fair play and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent-plaintiff was appointed in the year 1988 and was dismissed with the allegation that he had purchased one electric motor of sugar mill, which was stolen by Swaran Singh, Pump Attendant, another employee of the Mill. The respondent-plaintiff would term these allegations baseless and incorrect. Contention is that the electric motor was never recovered from his possession as can be seen from the finding of the criminal Court, wherein he was acquitted for the same allegation vide judgement dated 26.7.2001. Respondent-plaintiff would also urge that he was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry. The documents relied upon were also not statedly supplied to him. He had accordingly filed suit to challenge the order of dismissal. The appellant appeared and justified the order to be legal and valid. It is stated that the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed after conducting proper enquiry. A theft case was also registered against Swaran Singh. It is conceded that respondent-plaintiff was acquitted in a criminal case but his dismissal is justified on the ground that the said order was passed after conducting enquiry as per the Rules and upon finding him guilty of the allegations made against him. It is urged that the acquittal in the criminal case would not have any effect on the departmental proceedings and accordingly it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the order dated 7.8.01 is illegal, void and liable to be set-aside? OPP REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD
Relief.” The Trial Court held the impugned order to be legal and valid and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The first Appellate Court, however, reversed the said finding and accepted the appeal and accordingly allowed the suit. The first Appellate Court was impressed with the argument that the acquittal of respondent-plaintiff of the criminal charge, would entitle him to be reinstated on the ground that departmental proceedings and the criminal charge were on the same allegations. Reference was made to Javed Shoukat Vs. State of Bihar and others, Vs., 2000 (3) RSJ 711. Reliance is also placed on the views expressed in Banwari Mistry Vs. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, 2001 (4) SCT 91 and Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra Vs. Jagar Singh, 1998 (2) SCT 84 (P&H). The appellant-Mill, however, made reference to number of other decisions to plead that order of acquittal of an employee from alleged involvement in a criminal case does not automatically entitles him to reinstatement in service.
In view of the varying stand taken by the parties, the question of law requiring consideration in this case would be as under:- “Whether the finding of acquittal in the criminal Court would conclude the departmental proceedings, if in progress against the employee?” REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: No doubt, this Court in Vijay Kumar Sharma (Dr.) Vs. Chief Secretary and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Vigilance, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, 1996 (2) SCT 84 has observed that employee charge sheeted for the same offence in a criminal trial as well as departmental proceedings, when acquitted in criminal proceedings, then departmental proceedings on the same charge can not proceed. It is further observed that if acquittal is only on technical ground, then the competent authority still has a discretion to proceed to establish his misconduct. In Nar Singh Pal Vs.
Union of India, 2000 (2) SCT 523, it is observed that once there is a clean acquittal, the stigma attached to the delinquent of criminal prosecution has to be treated to have disappeared. Accordingly, the order of dismissal passed on that basis was held not justified any more. This judgment did not consider if the acquittal in a criminal case would automatically conclude the departmental proceedings or not. This issue has recently been considered by this Court on the basis of large number of judgments while deciding Regular Second Appeal No.2574 of 2009 (Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 17.3.2010. Various judgments in this regard were considered ultimately to hold that such plea can not be accepted. In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs. NOIDA & Ors., AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that termination of a departmental proceedings on withdrawal of criminal charges is not necessary.
It is observed that the object and purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is different. It is also held that a crime is an act of violation of law or omission of public duty and REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: departmental enquiry is to maintain the discipline and efficiency in public service. Finding, thus, is that there would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with both, unless the criminal charge is of grave nature, involving complicated questions of fact and law and there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the delinquent. Reference may be made to South Bengal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra and others, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3533 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not in itself make the departmental proceedings not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone into the nature and scope of proof in criminal case, which was held to be varying from that of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
As observed in this case, criminal charge has to be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt while in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is by mere preponderance of probabilities and order of punishment still can be passed. In Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., JT 2004 (6) 349, it is held that acquittal in criminal proceedings can not be a ground for setting-aside the termination as a matter of course. As per the counsel, it is a settled law that in a disciplinary enquiry a conclusion different from that arrived by criminal court may be arrived at and that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in the disciplinary proceedings. In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. (supra), the Court observed as under:- “The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is two different and distinct aspects. The criminal REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public.
So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law.
When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.” In this regard, reference can also be made to Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Mohd. Yousuf Miya and Ors., 1997 (2) SCC 699 and State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K.Meena and Ors., 1996 (4) SCT 707 (SC). It has rightly been observed that there can not be a straight jacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be held bound by the finding of the trial. In South Bengal State Transport Corpn. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept this line of submission. Rather, this aspect was found no longer res-integra in view of ratio of law laid down in Nelson Motis Vs. Union of India and others, 1993 (1) SCT 133, where it was observed as under:- “So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued in the face of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed consideration. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 8 }: departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding.
Besides, the Tribunal has pointed out that the acts which led to the initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceedings were not exactly the same which were the subject matter of the criminal case.” The above view was endorsed in the case of Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathamthitta and others Vs. A.Gopalan, 1997 (11) SCC 239. It has been held that the nature and scope of proof in a criminal case is very different from that of departmental disciplinary proceedings and the order of acquittal in the former can not conclude the departmental proceedings. Legal position is well settled that in a criminal case charge has to be proved by a proof beyond reasonable doubt while standard of proof in the departmental proceedings for proving a charge is mere preponderance of probabilities. In Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), again this argument was repelled by saying:- “We are unable to accede to this submission.
The termination was pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. It is settled law that in a disciplinary inquiry a conclusion different from that arrived at by a Criminal Court, may be arrived at. The strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a Criminal Court is not required in disciplinary proceeding. The Respondent had not claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly. As the termination was based on findings of the Disciplinary Committee, the fact that the Appellate Court exonerated REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3066 OF 2008 :{ 9 }: the respondent was of no consequence.” In view of the above legal position, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff can not be accepted. The view taken by the first Appellate Court that the acquittal in itself would conclude the departmental proceedings can not be accepted as correct and appropriate. The judgement under appeal, thus, can not be sustained and is set-aside. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed and as a necessary consequence thereof, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff shall stand dismissed. March 22, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Mar 2010. The bench was RANJIT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.