Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-9); the order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-7) and the inquiry report dated

29.05.2017 (Annexure P-2), whereby punishment of forfeiture of increment for two years with permanent effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as an Assistant Sub Inspector, was implicated in an FIR bearing No.277 dated 15.12.2016 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station City, Kapurthala, on the complaint of one Balvir Kaur, alleging therein that the petitioner had borrowed money from her for purchasing a house, but, thereafter, the petitioner failed to repay the amount and issued cheques towards repayment, which were CWP-36917-2019 -2- subsequently dishonoured. Consequent to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.12.2016. A departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved. Accordingly, he was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of five years service for purpose of increments with permanent effect, vide order dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure P-3). In appeal, the punishment was modified by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-7), thereby reducing the penalty to forfeiture of two years and the petitioner has been further held not entitled to anything else, for the suspension period from 15.12.2016 to

14.03.2017.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.277 dated 15.12.2016 has been quashed by this Court in CRM-M-35372- 2017, vide order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) and, therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner be set aside.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has been inflicted punishment after the charges were proved in the inquiry proceedings and merely the FIR in question has been quashed on the basis of a compromise, would not effect the punishment already awarded to the petitioner, as subsequent quashing of the FIR would have no bearing on the punishment, which has been awarded after following the due procedure of law.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

#6. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.12.2016 on the basis of registration of an FIR CWP-36917-2019 -3- against him bearing No.277 dated 15.12.2016 under Section 420 IPC. A regular departmental inquiry was thereafter conducted, in which the charges levelled in the chargesheet were proved against the petitioner, resulting in the imposition of the punishment of forfeiture of five years service for the purpose of increments with permanent effect, which was subsequently reduced to two years by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 02.02.2018. After the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service for increments with permanent effect, FIR No.277 dated 15.12.2016 has been quashed by this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2017, on the basis of a compromise effected between the parties. The quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise subsequent to the punishment awarded to the petitioner, after following the due procedure, would have no bearing on the punishment already awarded to the petitioner.

#7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Divisional Controller KSRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao : 2012(2) SCT 213, while dealing with the similar issue, has held as under:- “xxx

#19. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition that as the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and the termination is not based on mere conviction of an employee in a criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings. Nor can such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) does not lay down the law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence etc. involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. CWP-36917-2019 -4-

#24. The domestic enquiry found the delinquent employee guilty of all the charges. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and there is no grievance on behalf of the respondent-workman that statutory provisions/principles of natural justice have not been observed while conducting the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency. The Labour Court after reconsidering the whole case came to the conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with law in a fair manner and charges have rightly been proved against the delinquent employee. However, considering the difference in the standard of proof required in domestic enquiry, vis-a-vis that applicable to a criminal case, the Labour Court repelled the argument of respondent-workman that once he stood acquitted he was entitled for all reliefs including re-instatement and back wages. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had simply decided the case taking into consideration the acquittal of delinquent employee and nothing else.

#25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions that there is no finding by the High Court that the charges leveled in the domestic enquiry had been the same which were in the criminal trial; the witnesses had been the same; there were no additional or extra witnesses; and without considering the gravity of the charge, we are of the view that the award of the Labour Court did not warrant any interference. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge had granted relief to the delinquent employee which was not challenged by the present appellant by filing writ appeal. Therefore, the delinquent employee is entitled for the said relief. xxx”

#8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v. S. Samuthiram : 2013(1) SCT 115, has held as under:- “xxx

#20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the CWP-36917-2019 -5- Prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (husband - complainant) is found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined. Honourable Acquittal

#21. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, 1994(1) S.C.T. 505 : (1994)1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

#23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the CWP-36917-2019 -6- onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.

#24. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the re-instatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. xxx”

#9. Upon a meticulous and comprehensive appraisal of the material on record and the submissions advanced, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was subjected to a duly instituted and lawfully conducted departmental inquiry following his suspension due to the FIR. The inquiry resulted in findings of misconduct, supported by the evidence presented. It is well established that disciplinary proceedings are separate from criminal trials and are decided on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities. The later quashing of the FIR, based on a compromise, does not invalidate the CWP-36917-2019 -7- inquiry's findings. As there is no evidence of procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or perversity in the disciplinary authority's conclusions, in view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

06.07.2026 Vinay (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No