Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ameen Kumar Chatarjee vs West Central Railway Judgement Given ... on 5 December, 2013
1
Writ Petition No.6583/2012
(Ameen Kumar Chatarjee v. West Central Railway & Ors.)
05.12.2013
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S.Ruprah, learned counsel for respondents
No.1 to 3.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is heard finally.
Quashment of charge-sheet dated 27.3.2012 is being sought.
Vide impugned charge-sheet the petitioner, a Constable Railway Protection Force has been charged of dereliction of duties in as much that while on duty on 21.9.2011, in shift 16 to 24 hours (4 PM to 12 PM) at Beat No. 1, 2 and 3 petitioner entered into an altercation with one outsider Kriparam son of Ramdas R/o Nehru stadium, Harda and because of use of force by the petitioner, he succumbed to the injuries, as a result of the same an offence vide Crime No.156/2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered and the petitioner was in judicial custody from 23.9.2011 to 24.3.2012. The said act being misconduct under Rule 146.2
(i), 146.3(i), 146.4 (i), 146.8 (b) and 147.1 (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
Solitary ground on which present petition is filed is that the departmental enquiry on the same set of facts on which the petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code will prejudice the cause of petitioner, as his defence will get disclosed in the departmental enquiry and the same will be 2 Writ Petition No.6583/2012 (Ameen Kumar Chatarjee v. West Central Railway & Ors.) detrimental to criminal trial. Reliance is being placed on the decision in G.M.Tank V. State of Gujarat and another :
(2006) 5 SCC 446.
That there is further development in the matter in as much that during the pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 by order dated 31.8.2013 by Additional Sessions And Special Judge under The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 brought on record vide application dated 4.12.2013.
Placing reliance on the order of acquittal, it is contended on behalf of petitioner that having been acquitted, no charge now survives against the petitioner, as such the charge-sheet on the same set of charges is liable to be quashed.
Respondents on their turn have opposed the relief sought. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the charges levelled against the petitioner is for dereliction of duty and violation of Rules 146.2 (i), 146.3(i), 146.4 (i), 146.8 (b) and 147.1 (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 which tantamount to misconduct. It is urged that such act of misconduct led to death of an outsider and though the petitioner is acquitted of the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder as the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond doubt; the disciplinary action being not in respect of death but conduct unbecoming of a member of disciplined force , the charge sheet cannot be quashed 3 Writ Petition No.6583/2012 (Ameen Kumar Chatarjee v. West Central Railway & Ors.) even with the acquittal of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision in State Bank of India and others v. R.B.Sharma : AIR 2004 SC 4144; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sarvesh Berry : AIR 2005 SC 1406; Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others : (1997) 2 SCC 699; Indian Overseas Bank, Annasalai and another v. P.Ganesan and others : (2008) 1 SCC 650, to bring home the submission that criminal trial and departmental enquiry can simultaneously be continued and even with acquittal the departmental enquiry can be continued and if proved guilty, an employee can be punished.
Considered the respective submissions. Since the petitioner is acquitted of the criminal charge during pendency of departmental enquiry the decision relied on by either of the parties are not of much assistance.
The question is as to whether after acquittal a departmental enquiry on the same set of facts is permissible.
The laws on the issue is settled that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically absolve the employee from charges levelled against him in departmental enquiry.
In Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another v. Ramchandra and others : (1981) 2 SCC 714, it has been held -
"6. ... the fact remains, however, that merely because the accused is acquitted, the 4 Writ Petition No.6583/2012 (Ameen Kumar Chatarjee v. West Central Railway & Ors.) power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its direction in any way fettered."
In Nelson Motis v. Union of India and another : AIR 1992 SC 1981; it has been held -
"5. So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the disciplinary proceeding 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 departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding..."
In Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce :
AIR 2007 SC 199; it has been held -
"11. ......This Court has taken the view consistently that acquittal in a criminal case would be no bar for drawing up a disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent officer. It is well settled principle of law that the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities."
In General Manager, UCO Bank & another v. M. Venuranganath : AIR 2008 SC 732, 5 Writ Petition No.6583/2012 (Ameen Kumar Chatarjee v. West Central Railway & Ors.) "There can be no doubt that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in different fields. Even though the person may have been acquitted in a criminal trial, there is no embargo on his being departmentally proceeded against."
In view of the law laid down in the cases of Ramchandra, Nelson Motis, Suresh Pathrella and M. Venuranganath (supra), merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case, will not absolve from the departmental enquiry initiated against him. The direction for quashing of charge sheet is negatived.
In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand