Court Can Order Reinstatement Of Acquitted Employee If Charges, Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings Same As Criminal Case: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not grant a right to the employee to claim reinstatement however if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are similar and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. A division bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not grant a right to the employee to claim reinstatement however if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are similar and if evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.
A division bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice K. Manmadha Rao in its order said:
"we are of the opinion that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. Further, the Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.”
Background
The Writ Petition filed to challenging an order terminating services of the petitioner, Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy, who was a Field Asst. (Amin) in District Courts at Kadapa. Initially, a complaint was filed by one Sri V. Rama Chandra Reddy against the petitioner under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) post which the petitioner was arrested and subsequently sent to judicial custody.
Subsequently, the preliminary enquiry report was submitted by I Additional District Judge, Head of Vigilance Cell, Kadapa, and the 2nd Respondent (The Principal District Judge, Kadapa District, Kadapa-cum-Disciplinary Authority) ordered conducting of regular departmental enquiry. In the enquiry report, two out of three charges were not proved.
However, the Principal District Judge under Rule 21(1)(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1991, held the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. Consequently, Principal District Judge issued a show cause notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner "to show cause as to why the order of disciplinary authority setting aside findings of inquiry authority should not be confirmed granting 10 days time for submitting written reply.”
However, when the petitioner submitted his explanation, the same was not considered and the Principal District Judge on 30.06.2015, terminated the petitioner from service. The petitioner thus approached the High Court.
At the outset, the petitioner argued that the penalty of dismissal from service was too severe a penalty to impose for mere borrowal of amount/misconduct and the said penalty was liable to be set aside.
It was the case of the petitioners that the Principal District Judge did not properly consider the findings of the enquiry report, which found the petitioner guilty of only one out of the three framed against him. Additionally, highlighting the delay in filing the said complaint, the petitioner questioned as to why the complainant did not complain about the misconduct on petitioner's part to the concerned authorities even after retirement till the date of police complaint dated 20.05.2013. Even in the criminal trial initiated against the petitioner (CC No. 9 of 2015), the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 420(cheating).
Contrary to this, the respondents argued that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and invalidate the charges framed against him. Additionally, they argued that the delay in filing of the initial complaint with the police cannot be used as an excuse by the petitioner to claim innocence. Lastly, the respondents argued that the petitioner was held guilty of moral turpitude by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, only after evaluating the evidence of the prosecution and witnesses.
Findings
The Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the termination of the petitioner from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justified?
- Whether the criminal case of the petitioner was acquittal, if so, what was the effect of the acquittal?
It thus said, "If borrowing money and repayment thereof without the permission of the Head of the Department, if were to constitute a misconduct, PW.1 also equally guilty and he cannot be given preferential treatment and both being public servants employed in the same department, the principle of 'in pari delicto potiorestconditio” cannot be applied". Referring to the material the court further said that charges/allegations and the evidence of Prosecution witnesses 1-5 are totally false and do not stand to scrutiny.
In the criminal trial, the same witnesses as the departmental enquiry were examined and the petitioner was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence.
However, the Court opined that,
“Expressions like “benefit of doubt " and "honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantation. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding after full consideration of the prosecution evidence. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.”
Regarding the effect of the acquittal, while the Court held that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, the matter shall acquire a different dimension when charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are identical and similar.
Holding the termination order passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, the Court allowed the writ petition and subsequently set aside the termination of petitioner's services. Further, the Court directed the petitioner to be reinstated within 8 weeks along with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 3995 2017
Case Name: Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy v. High Court Of Judicature Registrar vigilance Hyd 2 and Others
Date: 25.03.2025
