Gujarat High Court
Pravinsinh Chandrasinh Chauhan vs Divisional Controller, S T ... on 20 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17290 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
PRAVINSINH CHANDRASINH CHAUHAN
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, S T CORPORATION, NADIAD DIVISION
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/03/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (T) No.47 of 2021 dated 16.01.2023 whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and with back wages came to be Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a driver having the badge No.10566 at Kheda Depot of Nadiad Division S.T. Corporation. He was serving since 1998 and he was given the benefit of regular employee in the year 2008. On 19.11.2016, when he was on duty as a driver in Kheda depot on the Nandurbar to Ahmedabad route, bus was checked by the Checking Officer at the Ahmedabad Bus Stand, During the inspection, from the battery box of driver's cabin and from luggage tool box below the Bus Conductor side as well as from the tool box next to spare wheel box on the bus, total 18 bottles of different brands of english liquor were found. The offence was registered under the Prohibition Act before the Kagdapith Police Station, which was later resulted in acquittal of the present petitioner. After registration of the offence, the services of the present petitioner was transferred to Balasinor Depot and subsequently was transferred to Dahod Depot where he was served with the charges on 11.03.2017.
3.1. The reply to the chargesheet was given by the present petitioner on 16.04.2017 and thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein the charges were held to be proved. Consequently, a punishment order in the nature of stoppage of three increments with future effect was passed by the Divisional Director, Godhra on 05.10.2017.
Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a review show cause notice on 03.04.2018, which was replied by the present petitioner. After hearing the petitioner, the reviewing authority, i.e. Chief Transport Officer, Ahmedabad, has passed an order on 09.10.2018 dismissing the service of the present petitioner. Challenging the above order, the petitioner filed a Second Appeal, which was rejected by the authority on 26.10.2010. Thereafter, the dispute was raised before the learned labour Court, which was registered being Reference (T) No.47 of 2021. Learned Reference Court, after considering the statement of claim, the written statement, and the evidence adduced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, has rejected the Reference, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Naidu for the respondent-corporation.
5. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that punishment of three years, which was imposed by the competent authority, was taken in the review without any sufficient cause, and without giving the cogent reasons, the punishment was enhanced to capital punishment. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that learned reviewing authority, while exercising the suo motu power, has committed an error in enhancing the punishment and has given discriminatory treatment as in the identically Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined situated persons, they have been given the minor punishment, whereas the present petitioner was awarded the final judgment.
5.1. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that in the criminal case, which was filed, wherein the acquittal was awarded, however, without considering the same, learned reviewing authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned Reference Court in the Reference filed by the present petitioner.
5.2. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the toolbox where the prohibited goods were found is not in the custody of the present petitioner, but in the custody of the Depot Officer, who by misusing the authority, has permitted to put the prohibited liquor in the box.Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the present petitioner was subjected to double punishment, as the order dated 05.10.2017, wherein stoppage of three increments was imposed, had already started to be implemented, and thereafter, the reviewing authority passed a further order on 09.10.2018, i.e., after a period of one year, dismissing the petitioner from service.
5.3. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that for a single offence, the petitioner was subjected to double punishment, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined that learned Reference Court, while exercising its powers under section 11 A, has committed an error in not examining the justification of imposing of punishment, as the said punishment is disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the other workman wherein the similar allegations were made namely M.T.Rathwa and Rajiv Kumar, who were found with the bottles of liquor in the Bus and the S.T. Corporation has imposed the minor punishment instead of dismissal.
5.4. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the learned Labour Court, as well as the authority, cannot take a different view regarding similar misconduct; therefore, the impugned order also deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod further submits that the learned Labour Court committed an error by not examining the charge and the evidence adduced before the departmental proceedings, and by concluding that the punishment imposed is just and proper in relation to the misconduct alleged against the present petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Naidu, appearing for the respondent, submits that on 16.11.2016, the Bus was checked by the police authority, and during the course of inspection around 16 bottles of liquor were found from the possession of the petitioner. The statement of the Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined petitioner was also recorded on the spot wherein he had admitted regarding the possession of the liquor from him. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Naidu that after holding the departmental inquiry by order dated 05.10.2017, punishment of stoppage of three increments with future effect was imposed by the Divisional Controller, Godhra. Under the Disciplinary Appeal Rules a suo motu review was initiated wherein the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.04.2018 calling the petitioner to provide the explanation that why the punishment is not enhanced. The hearing was also provided to the concerned workman by the reviewing authority and after considering the submissions and the defence raised by the workman, the reviewing authority by its order dated 09.10.2018 substituted the punishment of dismissal.
6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that while substituting the punishment, the reviewing authority has also taken into consideration the past misconduct and, after assigning the detailed reasons, the final punishment was imposed. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu further submits that under clauses 9 and 20 of the Discipline and Appeal procedure, the reviewing authority has the power to enhance the punishment after providing the sufficient opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu, relying on the Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined resolution dated 02.05.2018, submits that if the punishment imposing authority is the Divisional Controller, then the first appeal can be head by the Chief Personnel Officer or the Chief Traffic Officer, who is empowered and to conduct the first appeal proceedings. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that the reviewing authority had the vested powers to review the case, and therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in dismissing the Reference under Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act."
6.3. Relying on the following decisions learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that in absence of challenge of legality and validity of the inquiry conducted, the learned Labour Court cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer regarding the misconduct committed by the employee.
(1) State of Rajastahan and others vs. Heem Singh, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 (2) Muriadia Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal, Ltd.,vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,reported in (2005) 3 SCC 331 (3) Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd. vs. N.K.Singh, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554, (4)UPSRTC vs. Vinod Kumar, reported in 2007 LawSuit(SC) 1292, (5) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ishwarbhai Madhabhai Pate, in Special Civil Application No.11349 of 2002, Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined (6) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Maganbhai L. Makwana and others, Special Civil Application No.888 of 2004 (7) Divisional Controller, GSRTC vs. Dahyabhai L Patel, Letters Patent Appeal No.1090 of 2004.
6.4. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Naidu that in the event of loosing the confidence or faith, awarding the punishment of dismissal is just and proper. Therefore, learned Reference Court has rightly declined to interfere with the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority and has dismissed the Reference.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had been serving as a driver since 1998 and was made permanent in the year 2008. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that on 19.11.2016, a checking squad has found 18 bottles of the liquor in the toolbox at conductor's side, battery box of driver's cabin and spare wheel box of the Bus. Upon being an FIR lodged, the petitioner was arrested and within a week thereafter, he was transferred to Balasinor Depot, Kheda Depot and Dahod Depot. He was served with the chargesheet on 11.03.2017, which was replied by the petitioner on 16.04.2017.
8. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined stoppage of three annual increments with future effect on 05.10.2017. Thereafter, the reviewing authority has issued a show cause notice on 03.04.2018, calling upon the present petitioner to explain that why he should not be dismissed from the service. In response, the petitioner stated that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal offense and, therefore, the punishment imposed did not require review. However, by an order dated 09.10.2018, the reviewing authority dismissed the petitioner from service, considering the charge as serious misconduct against the employer
9. With regard to the powers of the reviewing authority, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the Civil Reference being No.1 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No.888 of 2004 wherein this Court has observed as under:
"11. We have reasons for taking the above view. If Clause
10 is seen, it empowers the Appellate Authority to examine the questions, whether the punishment is excessive, adequate or inadequate, and after doing so, pass such order as it thinks proper. The power, therefore, is not only for examining the question, whether the punishment is excessive or adequate, but, also to examine whether it is inadequate, and these powers are vested in the Appellate Authority even in a situation, where appeal is preferred by the delinquent, who is aggrieved by the order of punishment. Therefore, if the Appellate Authority enjoys powers to examine question of inadequacy of punishment while examining an appeal of Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined the employee, Clause-9 has to be read so as to invest the Appellate Authority with suo motu powers to call for enquiry papers, and to review/revise the decision as it may deem fit. The words "as it may deem fit" have to be given a wide import as to empower the Appellate Authority to enhance the punishment also only then the equity will be established.
***
15. Ordinarily, powers of review are contemplated in respect of the same authority who passes the order. But, here, these powers are vested in the Appellate Authority and have to be considered as revisional powers rather than review powers.
16. In view of what is discussed above, we hold that Clause- 9 empowers the Appellate Authority to call for the papers of any case for review. Obviously, these powers would include the powers to enhance the punishment in case it is found to be inadequate. We may hasten to add that, for doing so, the Appellate Authority, as it is expected, should give an opportunity to the delinquent for putting forward his case on adequacy or inadequacy of punishment. The powers can be exercised even in case where the delinquent is held to be not guilty of and is discharged of the charges against him by the competent authority.
10. The respondent has also clarified in the affidavit that the Resolution dated 02.05.2018 stipulates that if the punishment imposing authority is Divisional Controller, then the first appeal can be heard by the chief personal officer or chief traffic officer, who is empowered Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined to conduct the first appeal proceedings. In the instant case, reviewing authority is Chief Divisional Controller, who has reviewed the order of Divisional Controller by exercising the powers under Clause (9) read with Clause (14) of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure), which is revisional power in nature. Relevant clause is reproduced hereinbelow:
"(9) The appellate authority may suo motu call for the inquiry papers and review the decision in any case as it may deem fit."
(14)The authority to whom an appeal lics under these provisions shall decide it himself and shall pass such orders on the appeal as he thinks fit, after verifying whether the prescribed procedure has been followed by the Enquiry Officer and whether there was any material irregularity likely to vitiate the decision of the Competent Authority (or the 1st Appellate Authority in case of a second appeal). In case the Appellate Authority feels that there has been such an irregularity it may direct the Competent Authority (or the 1st Appellate Authority in case of a second appeal) to make up the irregularity and to submit the case to the Appellate Authority."
11. With regard to the powers of review, the authority conferred upon the appellate authority has already been considered by the Division Bench in the aforementioned Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined case. Since the issue is no longer res integra, it does not require further discussion.
12. So far as the other arguments regarding proportionality/ quantum of the punishment as the acquittal in the criminal proceeding has been awarded is concerned, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M.G.Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 wherein the Apex Court 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, Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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."
13. In State of Karnataka & Anr. v. T. Venkataramanappa, 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, 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 Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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."
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 Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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 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."
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 Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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 as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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, 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, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. T. Srinivas, Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Narendra Singh, South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Span Kumar Mitra & Ors., Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined and Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ram Sajivan.
22. In Union of India & Ors. v. Naman Singh Shekhawat, 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. Therefore, initiation of proceeding should be bona fide and must be reasonable and fair.
23. In Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan, 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. 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, and Noida Entrepreneurs' Assn. v. Noida.
22......41We 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 Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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."
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 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.
LOSS OF CONFIDENCE:
25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. (Vide: Air India Corporation Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow, AIR 1972 SC 1343; Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1971 SC 2414; and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors.
Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined
13. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh, reported in 2021 (12) SCC 569 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"....37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge." (emphasis supplied) In Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram 10, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that unless the accused has an "honorable acquittal" in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an "honourable acquittal". Noticing this, the Court observed:
"Honourable acquittal
24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 :(1994) 26 ATC 619] . 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 Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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.
25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] which is as follows:
"8. ... 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term "honourably acquitted".
26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules 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 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 Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined 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 that 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." (emphasis added).
14. In this background, this Court is of the view that when the inquiry was conducted independently of the criminal proceedings, an acquittal in a criminal court does not benefit the workman, as the standard of proof required in a domestic inquiry differs significantly from that in a criminal case. In criminal proceedings, the standard of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' whereas in a domestic inquiry, the test applied is the 'preponderance of probabilities'.
15. It is contended by the learned advocate that the similar charges and for identical misconduct a lenient view was taken by the employer. This Court is unable to accede the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the same would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that equality is positive concept and there cannot be negative equality in law. Merely because in few cases, the corporation has viewed misconduct leniently that would not give right to the delinquent to seek similar order from the Court.
16. At this stage, the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of The Karnataka State Road vs. Sri Savanth Mali, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 437 is required to be referred, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined "***
13. xxxxx A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short "the NC:
2024:KHC:9383 Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. "
17. In the case on hand, during the departmental proceedings, the respondent admitted to the charge that the liquor found was owned by the petitioner. Consequently, punishment was imposed in the disciplinary proceedings which was review by authority. Therefore, this Court does not find the dismissal punishment is disproportionate to the charge.
18. With regard to the power of the learned labour Court in exercising the discretion under Section 11(A), this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union through workmen, reported (2005) 3 SCC 331 wherein in paragraphs 7 and 8 the Apex Court has observed as under:
"7.Having taken into consideration the gravity of the offence of physical assault on the Managing Staff of the colliery with deadly weapons and causing injuries to them and having come to the conclusion that the Management has been able to prove most of the Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined charge leveled against the workmen, the Tribunal proceeded to interfere with the punishment of dismissal observing thus:-
"I am to hold further that the concerned workmen were members of the mob and they also caused injury to Shri Tripathy and others. But definitely they had never intended to kill Shri Tripathy as held above. Since there was casually on account of bursting of water tank it was natural for the workmen in general to go in agitation against the management and at that time the mob is mostly guided by their own emotions and feelings. In the circumstances of the case I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal will be harsh punishment which definitely amount to hanging of an accused after criminal trial. For causing simple hurt even to the high officials like the General Manager the workmen should not be dismissed rather some alternative punishment like stoppage of increment which is also one of the major penalty should be inflicted. I also find that there is no previous history of any such act on the part of the concerned workmen. In the circumstances, I feel that the needs of justice can be met by reinstating the concerned workmen in their service without payment of back wages and with permanent stoppage of one increment. However, they will get continuity of their service."
8. As stated above being aggrieved by the interference with the punishment awarded by the Management after coming to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged is established, the appellant preferred writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed the said writ petition agreeing with the finding of the Tribunal observing thus:-
"Certainly the assault to the senior officials that too in the rank of General Manager by the workmen in discharge of their duties is a gross misconduct and in such a situation officials who are managing the affairs are being demoralised. But in the instant case the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was a mitigating circumstance and the action of the two workmen were neither deliberate or intentional but it was in a sudden spur of the moment overwhelmed by the mob mentality the workmen assaulted these senior officials only for the reason that on the same day there was a bursting of a tank in which some workmen died in the accident which created an impression to the fellow workers that due to negligence on the part of the Management, such accident took place. So far the aforesaid reason alone, this occurrence took place and it is not a case of personal vendetta or a gross act of in discipline or insubordination. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in modifying the extreme punishment of dismissal and both the workmen though definitely guilty, were also awarded sufficient punishment as no back wages Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17290/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2025 undefined were awarded also an increment was withheld. In that view of the matter and in such mitigating circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly this Writ application is dismissed, but without costs."(Emphasis supplied).
19. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO.LTD. VS. N.K.SINGH, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 554 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
"10.We find that the Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair and proper. The conduct highlighted by the management and established in inquiry was certainly of very grave nature. The Labor Court and the High Court have not found that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the finding on facts that the acts complained of were established has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the Labor Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. The case of R.P. Singh was not on a similar footing. He was one of the persons instigating whereas the respondent was the person who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of dismissal from service in the disciplinary proceedings stand restored.
20. Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned court below was justified in declining to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the management. Therefore, no merit is found in the petition.
21. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Apr 02 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 11 22:44:42 IST 2025