Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2018
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 26049/2018
Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP
Gwalior, dtd. 19/11/2018
Shri SK Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, Government Advocate for the respondents/
State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction that the respondents have not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, they may be directed to decide the representation.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was issued the charge sheet and accordingly, after the Departmental Enquiry the petitioner was punished by imposing the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the similar allegations the petitioner was criminally prosecuted and the petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 12/03/2018 passed by Special Judge (SC & ST, Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Morena in Special Sessions Trial No.115/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondents for revocation of order of punishment in the light of his acquittal.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2It is well-established principle of law that the degree of proof in criminal case and departmental proceedings are different. The Supreme Court in the case of BHEL vs. M. Mani, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 285 has held as under:-
''22. This Court has consistently held that in a case where the enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in criminal Court is of no avail. It is held that even if a person stood acquitted by the criminal Court, domestic enquiry can still be held - the reason being that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in criminal case are altogether different. In a criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry, it is the preponderance of probabilities. (See Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G. Vittal Rao-(2012) 1 SCC 442) '' The Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka SRTC vs. M. G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442, has held as under:-
''11. The question of considering reinstatement after decision of acquittal or discharge by a competent criminal Court arises only and only if the dismissal from services was based on conviction by the criminal Court in view of the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, 1950, or analogous provisions in the statutory rules applicable in a case. In a case where enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal Court is of no help. The law is otherwise. Even if a person stood acquitted by a criminal Court, domestic enquiry can be held, the reason being that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in a criminal case are altogether different. In a criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied.
12. In Nelson Motis v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1981, this Court held :
"The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding."3
13. In State of Karnataka & Anr. v. T. Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455, this Court held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different as the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in the departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required.
14. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Allabaksh, (2000) 10 SCC 177, while dismissing the appeal against acquittal by the High Court, this Court observed as under:-
"That acquittal of the respondent shall not be construed as a clear exoneration of the respondent, for the allegations call for departmental proceedings, if not already initiated, against him."
15. While dealing with a similar issue, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, held as under:-
"In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability."4
16. The issue as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when the delinquent employee is facing the criminal trial, has also been considered from time to time. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 13, this Court while dealing with the issue observed as under:-
"It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be `desirable', `advisable' or `appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges...The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that `the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced'. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, `advisability', `desirability' or `propriety', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case....One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and should not be - delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion.If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that 5 persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest........" (Emphasis added)
17.In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 1416, this Court held that there can be no bar for continuing both the proceedings simultaneously. The Court placed reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, including Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
v. The Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 155;Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30;Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2118; Nelson Motis (Supra); and B.K.Meena (Supra), and held that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In departmental proceedings, factors prevailing in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. In case the criminal case does not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the same at an early date. The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindicated, and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
18. However, while deciding the case, taking into consideration the facts involved therein, the Court held:
"Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn 6 as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case."
19.In State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144, same view has been reiterated observing that both proceedings can be held simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings in criminal case are based on same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings is common. The Court observed as under:-
"The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are to put a distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of 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 a public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service."
20. While deciding the said case a very heavy reliance has been placed upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd Yousuf Miya & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232, wherein it has been held that both proceedings can be held simultaneously unless the gravity of the charges demand staying the disciplinary proceedings till the trial is concluded as complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case.
21. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan, AIR 1999 SC 1514;
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. T. Srinivas, AIR 2004 SC 4127; Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 200; Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Narendra Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1800; South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Span Kumar Mitra & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 584; and Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan, (2007) 9 SCC 86.
22.In Union of India & Ors. v. Naman Singh Shekhawat, (2008) 4 SCC 1, this Court held that departmental proceeding can be initiated after acquittal by the Criminal Court. However, the departmental proceeding should be initiated provided the department intended to adduce any evidence which could prove the charges against the delinquent officer.
7Therefore, initiation of proceeding should be bona fide and must be reasonable and fair.
23. In Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan, (2007) 9 SCC 755, this Court re-considered the issue taking into account all earlier judgments and observed as under:
"21..There are evidently two lines of decisions of this Court operating in the field. One being the cases which would come within the purview of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (supra), and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC C446. However, the second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of facts or same set of evidence; (ii) the effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary proceeding has not been considered (See:Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh, (supra) or; where the delinquent officer was charged with something more than the subject-matter of the criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the civil court (See: G.M. Tank, (supra), Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank, (2007) 1 SCC 566; and Noida Entrepreneurs' Assn. v. Noida, (2007) 10 SCC 385, para
22. ..........We may not be understood to have laid down a law that in all such circumstances the decision of the civil court or the criminal court would be binding on the disciplinary authorities as this Court in a large number of decisions points out that the same would depend upon other factors as well. (See: e.g. Krishnakali Tea Estate (supra); and Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100). . Each case is, therefore, required to be considered on its own facts."
(See also: Ram Tawekya Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 261; and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570).
24. 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 8 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.'' Therefore, the petitioner cannot be exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry merely on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out, warranting direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2018.11.24 11:05:39 +05'30'