Merely Because Accused Has Been Acquitted, Concerned Authority’s Power To Continue With Departmental Inquiry Is Not Taken Away: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday held that an order of acquittal by the Criminal Court does not automatically entitle an employee to exoneration and consequential reliefs in the form of back wages for the period of suspension withheld as penalty by the Disciplinary Authority, if the acquittal is not based on merits.

The single judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur noted:

“In this case, the Investigating Officer was the only witness in the criminal proceeding. No material evidence had been placed before the Court. The documents, though seized were not adduced. Hence, the Magistrate was left with no other choice but to pass an order of acquittal. The petitioner had not been exonerated on merits. The case was conducted in a perfunctory manner and no document had been brought on record in support of the charges. There has been no consideration of the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the acquittal cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal.”

The petitioner was serving as an Assistant with the Life Insurance Corporation Limited (LIC) when on November 3, 2000, a criminal case was instituted against him under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) and Section 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of IPC for allegedly having forged documents submitted to the British Consulate to obtain visas for himself and his family members.

The petitioner was served with an order of suspension on November 14, 2000 and a letter dated March 30, 2002 whereby penalty in the form of reduction in basic pay by three stages was imposed on the petitioner as per Regulation 39(1) (d) of the LICI (Staff) Regulations 1960.

The petitioner made a representation to the appellate authority stating that by an order dated January 20, 2004 he had been “honourably acquitted” by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and as such his suspension period ought to be treated as period on duty and consequential benefits be restored. The petitioner further sought the release of the basic increments.

The respondent authorities by a letter dated December 29, 2004 informed the petitioner that the order of acquittal was passed on technical grounds and his case fell within the ambit of Regulation 38(b) of the LICI (Staff) Regulations 1960. Accordingly, the back wages which had been paid for the period of suspension were directed to be refunded with immediate effect.

The petitioner before the High Court challenged the communications of the respondents and contended that since he was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court, he is entitled to back wages for the period of suspension and release of basic increments withheld as penalty. It was further contended by the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority could not have gone beyond the order of the Magistrate to make observations as to the nature of the acquittal.

The court noted that the nature and scope of a criminal proceeding is different from that of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal does not automatically conclude the departmental proceeding.

“Merely because an accused has been acquitted, the power of the concerned authority to continue with the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its discretion in any way fettered. The order of acquittal may be taken into account but it will not have the overwhelming effect of eclipsing the charges in the disciplinary proceeding. The standard of proof in both the cases is different and the proceedings operate in different fields with different objectives,” it said.

The court noted that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner’s case ought not to be equated with a full exoneration.

“There is also no challenge to the order of the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority on merits or otherwise. Hence, the invocation of Rule 38(b) of the LICI (staff) Regulation Act 1960 is permissible,” the court added.

Thus, the court held that petitioner cannot claim back wages for the period of suspension and the basic pay withheld as penalty.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Union of India & Ors.

Coram: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment