Court Can Quash Disciplinary Proceedings Considering Acquittal In Criminal Case On Same Charges : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in recent judgment discussed the validity of disciplinary proceedings when it is based on same evidence/ witnesses/ circumstances in a criminal case that ended up in acquittal.

"...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. 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. Each case will turn on its own facts” the bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan stated.

The Court also said that the court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not just go by the form of expression used.

“Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology” the Apex Court said.

The Appellant in this case was a Constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in Jodhpur appointed on 15.12.1991. An FIR was registered against him in 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. A criminal trial and a departmental enquiry were initiated against the Appellant. The allegation in both the proceedings was that he had altered his date of birth in his 8th standard mark sheet to project himself to be a major at the time of the recruitment to the post.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC but the Appellate Judge later acquitted the appellant. However, the Disciplinary Authority in the departmental proceedings against him found the charges to be proved and dismissed him from service.

The Appellant challenged his dismissal before the High Court. The High Court refused him relief holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The Appellant subsequently approached the Apex Court. 

The Apex Court reiterated that a writ court's power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority can only be used to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. The Court also reiterated that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer a right to reinstatement.

However, the Apex Court in this case concluded that the inference was drawn by the Disciplinary Authority about proof of charges by ignoring material evidence.

The Apex Court could held that the a reading of the entire judgment of the trial court would clearly indicate that the Appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and after concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against him.

“The conclusion 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 can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.” the Apex Court added.

The Court was thus satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and deserved to be quashed.

'It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere' the Court said.

The Court accepted the explanation of the appellant that overwriting in the application form was only due to correction of an inadvertent error.

The Court thus directed reinstatement of the Appellant with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary.

Case Title: Ram Lal V. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Click here to read/download judgment