Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Interfere With Police Constable's Compulsory Retirement, Says His Acquittal In Abduction Case Not ‘Honourable’
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased police constable against the order to compulsory retire him from service in pursuance to a departmental enquiry against him in relation to a case of abduction in which he was acquitted later.The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there is no flaw in the decision making process and...
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased police constable against the order to compulsory retire him from service in pursuance to a departmental enquiry against him in relation to a case of abduction in which he was acquitted later.
The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there is no flaw in the decision making process and the department has led credible evidence to show that he was guilty of misconduct.
"The findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on ‘no evidence’. The impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are in accordance with law. In view of the misconduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the punishment is disproportionate and shocking, warranting any interference,” said the court
The Constable at Police Station Sadar, Tonk remained absent from duty on December 28, 2001 and days later, it was alleged, he along with four other persons abducted a person and assaulted him and took his signatures on a stamp paper. A case was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Todaraisingh (Tonk) for the offences under Section 365 (Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person), Section 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement), Section 327 (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act), Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of IPC, and he was arrested on March 15, 2002.
Meanwhile, a charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules) with the additional charge that such act of the petitioner has spoiled the image of Police in the esteem of public.
The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted. After holding detailed enquiry, the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and the punishment order was passed against the petitioner by compulsorily retiring him from service vide impugned order dated December 11, 2003. The petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules which was rejected.
Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner filed the appeal before the High Court. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the constable in departmental chargesheet and in the criminal case were same and identical, and in the criminal case he has been acquitted from all the charges.
It was argued that since the constable was acquitted in the criminal trial, the finding of guilt recorded against him in the disciplinary enquiry on the same charges is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents contended that charges against the constable in the criminal trial were not exactly the same as they were in the departmental enquiry. It was further submitted that acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a person to automatic reinstatement into service.
The court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana wherein it was held that acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a person to automatic reinstatement.
It further noted that in the criminal trial, the star witness of the prosecution entered into compromise with the accused persons and he turned hostile and did not support the allegations levelled by him against the petitioner in the FIR lodged by him.
“No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, hence the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner has not been acquitted by the trial court after full consideration of the prosecution evidence, rather the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of settlement, because the witness Gopal entered into a compromise with the accused persons and he turned hostile. Hence, the acquittal of the petitioner cannot be treated as ‘honorable acquittal’.”
The court further noted that in a case where enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in a criminal case is of no help.
“It is well settled proposition of law that 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 is required as beyond reasonable doubt, while in a domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied,” the court said.
The court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umesh and observed that judicial review of the departmental enquiry is based on different principles and acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case will not result into exoneration of the petitioner.
Case Title: Bahadur Singh through Legal Representatives v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand