Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs Inspector General, Cisf on 1 August, 2019
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
at some length. The only question that arises for
consideration is no more res integra. It is well
settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of
the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial
simultaneously. However, no straitjacket formula
can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in
mind the broad approach to be adopted in such
matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the
approach to be adopted by the Court has been
delineated in a series of decisions
The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v.
CISF, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as under :
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Yousuf Miya Etc on 20 November, 1996
"17. The scope of departmental enquiry and
judicial proceedings and the effect of acquittal by a
criminal court has been examined by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya.
The relevant paragraph is as under: (SCC pp. 704-05,
para 8)
"8. ... The purpose of departmental enquiry and
of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects.
The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence
for violation of a 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 public duty. The departmental enquiry is
to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that
the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and
completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not,
therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as
inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings
may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal
case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires
to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed
6
simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of
a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial
is of grave nature involving complicated questions of
fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement
of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere
private rights punishable under criminal law. When
trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offence as per the
evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence
Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The
enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to
conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to
punish him for his misconduct defined under the
relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard
of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands
excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the
departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the
delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as
high as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that
invariably the departmental enquiry has to be
conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency
in public administration and the criminal trial will take
its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal
trial is entirely different from the departmental
proceedings. In the former, prosecution is to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt on the touchstone of
human conduct. The standard of proof in the
departmental proceedings is not the same as of the
criminal trial. The evidence also is different from the
standard point of the Evidence Act. The evidence
required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated
by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what
is required to be seen is whether the departmental
enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in
his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a
question of fact to be considered in each case
depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this
case, we have seen that the charge is failure to
anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has
nothing to do with the culpability of the offence under
7
Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Under these
circumstances, the High Court was not right in staying
the proceedings."
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
18. The exposition has been further affirmed by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. This Court held as under: (SCC p.
776, para 11)
"11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a
criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said
order does not preclude the Corporation from taking
an action if it is otherwise permissible. 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". Acquittal of
8
the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does
not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are,
therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the
appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal
court, the impugned order dismissing him from
service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. Lrs vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 September, 2012
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale
(Dead) Through LRs Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012)
13 SCC 142 has held as under:-
The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1959
As this Court has held
in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan
it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a
charge framed against a workman in a domestic
enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the
employer, should stay the domestic enquiry pending
the final disposal of the criminal case."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kusheshwar Dubey vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 6 September, 1988
In this
case, we have seen that the charge is failure to anticipate
the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to do
with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A
and 338, IPC. Under these circumstances, the High
Court was not right in staying the proceedings.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 319 has held as under :