Reinstatement in service only possible when delinquent employee gets 'honourable acquittal' from criminal court: Supreme Court
Supreme Court has held that merely because an employee is acquitted by the criminal court it does not mean, ipso-facto that he is entitled to be reinstated in service, since he was dismissed from service after facing a disciplinary proceeding as the disciplinary proceedings are governed by a different standard of proof, which are different from what is applied in a criminal proceeding.
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a delinquent employee can be reinstated in service only when his acquittal is an honourable acquittal, and not one given due to a “benefit of doubt" by a criminal court.
This observation has been made by the top court while allowing an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the High Court's decision of quashing order of dismissal from service of a delinquent employee, only because he was acquitted by trial courts.
The state of Rajasthan, before the top court had argued that the acquittal by the criminal court was of no consequence, as far as departmental proceedings were concerned.
Court also reiterated that 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”...", further held a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
In the case before court, one Phool Singh, a police constable, was accused of committing criminal offences, apart from three acts of gross indiscipline. After a departmental enquiry, he was removed from service.
Singh was convicted by the trial court for the criminal charges but later, a Sessions Court acquitted him. After his acquittal, Singh moved an application before the authorities for his reinstatement which was decided against him. Hence, he filed the writ petitions.
The top court noted that the High Court of Rajasthan, both in the writ petition and special appeal had allowed the case of Phool Singh only on the ground, that now since he had been acquitted by a criminal court, on the same set of facts and charges on which he had faced a departmental proceeding, the orders passed in departmental proceedings were liable to be quashed and he must be reinstated in service.
It was thus held that Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, were clearly wrong in interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority of the Rajasthan Police. Court said,
"It is the Disciplinary Authority which is best equipped to reach a finding whether a “misconduct” has been committed. The prime concern of a Judge should be whether such a finding has been arrived after following a fair procedure, following the principles of natural justice and fairness."
The top court further held that Singh was convicted by the Trial Court and in appeal the Appellate Court only acquitted him by giving him a “benefit of doubt” which would not amount to an honourable acquittal.
Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. vs. PHOOL SINGH