Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."

This principle was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Supt. of Police reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 and the relevant paragraph Nos.21 to 26, which are as under:

22. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" was discussed by this Court in detail in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC(L&S) 229], the relevant paragraph from the said case reads as under:
(SCC p. 609, para 24) "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 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

trial, but found guilty of the misconduct in a departmental proceedings, both arising out of the same act. However, when the charges in both proceedings of the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings are similar and the evidence let in is also same and in the criminal trial when the accused has been acquitted honourablly for want of evidence, in that event it is not advisable to hold that the said person guilty in the departmental proceedings on the same piece of evidence. However, it should be noticed that the acquittal needs to be honourable. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the charge leveled against the accused, we can term it at Honourable acquittal. In those circumstances, a divergent finding of the departmental enquiry can be set aside.

14. Thus, by reading of the judgment in Spl.(Lok) C.No.3/2013, it is clear that the acquittal cannot be

- 27 -

considered as Honourable acquittal, but because the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This type of acquittal cannot be a ground for the petitioner to seek setting aside the enquiry report of respondent No.3, the recommendation of respondent No.2, second show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 and the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by respondent No.4.