Employee Dismissed After Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Reinstated Merely Because He Was Acquitted In Related Criminal Case: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an employee who was dismissed from service pursuant to disciplinary enquiry cannot be reinstated merely because he is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by a criminal court on the same set of charges and facts.

Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service., the bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.

Phool Singh had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable. A departmental proceedings was initiated against him alleging that (1) he had consumed alcohol (2) indecently abused and demanded for a bribe of Rs.100/- from a person, (3) fired at public which was chasing him. All the three charges were ultimately proved against him he was dismissed from service. An FIR was also lodged against him under Sections 392, 307 IPC and Section 34 of Police Act read with Section 3/25 of Arms Act in this regard. Though the Trial court Convicted him, the Appellate Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt. After his acquittal, he moved an application before the authorities for his reinstatement. Since the authorities did not respond favourably, he filed a writ petition. The Rajasthan High Court, taking note of this acquittal, allowed his plea and directed his reinstatement. 

In appeal, the State raised the issue whether he can be reinstated in service for the reason that now on the same set of charges he has been acquitted by a criminal court?

The bench first noticed the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr (1999) 3 SCC 679, which was relied on by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The court also added that there are a large number of cases where  it was consistently held that the two proceedings, i.e., criminal and departmental, are entirely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service when one has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding.

"It is true that this Court, apart from the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony, has in a few cases not interfered with the reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of "benefit of doubt"", the court observed.

Taking note of the fact that in the present case the acquittal is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a "benefit of doubt", the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment.

Case details

State of Rajasthan vs Phool Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735 | CA 5930 OF 2022 | 2 September 2022 | Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia 

Headnotes

Disciplinary Proceedings - Criminal and departmental, are entirely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service when one has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding - When it is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a "benefit of doubt", there cannot be reinstatement. (Para 8-14)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment