Acquittal in Criminal Case does not Ipso Facto Absolve the Delinquent from Disciplinary Proceedings:

Acquittal in Criminal Case does not Ipso Facto Absolve the Delinquent from Disciplinary Proceedings:

Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, CISF & Ors. (01/08/2019)[1]: In the referred case the appellant was an employee (Constable) of CISF and he was arrested for providing unlicensed country made revolver to someone who murdered his aunt with the said revolver. A criminal case was instituted against the appellant and he was acquitted from the trial court as the witnesses turned hostile. Further, on the ground of gross misconduct and serious breach of discipline by the employee constable unbecoming of a member of the armed force, the CISF in its Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings, after due compliance of principles of natural justice, dismissed the Appellant from the service.

After hearing the appeal, the Hon’ble SC held that acquittal in criminal proceedings would not absolve the appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

In the referred case, the three-judges bench of the Hon’ble SC scanned its earlier judgments[2] on the matter in reference, the ratio/ expositions whereof in brevity are as under—

• No bar in Simultaneous Criminal and Disciplinary Proceedings: There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case, though separately, unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.[3]
• Acquittal ipso facto does not absolve from Disciplinary Proceedings: The acquittal of the accused in criminal case does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of his employer.[4]
• Speedy Disciplinary Proceedings: The objects of departmental proceedings and of criminal trial are different and conducted in different aspects. The criminal prosecution is ignited for the offence committed against society at large whereas departmental enquiry/ proceedings is initiated to maintain discipline in service. It is therefore expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and concluded as expeditiously as possible.[5] If the criminal proceeding does not progress, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on the account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is not found guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.[6]
• Same set of Fact: If the departmental  and criminal proceedings  are based on the same set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves intricate questions of law and fact it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
• Nature of Evidence: The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely different from the departmental proceedings. An acquittal in criminal trail does not necessarily have bearing upon the departmental disciplinary action as in the prior the charge is to be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” while in the latter the Disciplinary Authority has to proceed on the “preponderance of probability”. [7]

[1] . The link for the judgment is : https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/36066/36066_2008_3_1502_15489_Judgement_01-Aug-2019.pdf

[2].M. Paul Anthony Vs.  Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. [1999(3) SCC 679]; G.M. Tank Vs.  State of Gujarat and Ors.[2006(5) SCC 446]; Depot Manager, A.P. State  Road Transport Corporation  Vs.  Mohd.  Yousuf  Miya    and Ors. [1997(2) SCC 699]; Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ),  Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia   and   Others [2005(7) SCC 764]

[3] . Depot Manager, A.P. State  Road Transport Corporation  Vs.  Mohd.  Yousuf  Miya    and Ors. [1997(2) SCC 699]; Also see, M. Paul Anthony Vs.  Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. [1999(3) SCC 679]

[4] . Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ),  Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia   and   Others [2005(7) SCC 764]

[5] . Depot Manager, A.P. State  Road Transport Corporation  Vs.  Mohd.  Yousuf  Miya    and Ors. [1997(2) SCC 699]

[6] . M. Paul Anthony Vs.  Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. [1999(3) SCC 679]

[7] . Depot Manager, A.P. State  Road Transport Corporation  Vs.  Mohd.  Yousuf  Miya    and Ors. [1997(2) SCC 699]