Findings In Criminal Trial Should Have Bearing On Disciplinary Proceedings In Case Of Identical Charges:Calcutta High Court

Background Facts

The employee was appointed as a laborer (Group-D) in the Indian Red Cross Society on May 22, 1979. He was granted temporary status effective from April 1, 1980. On August 3, 1994, a complaint was lodged by respondent against employee, leading to a criminal case being registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal breach of trust. The employee was arrested on August 6, 1994, and released on bail on August 23, 1994.

On August 11, 1994, while employee was still under arrest, the Indian Red Cross Society placed him under deemed suspension. A chargesheet was issued on April 17/25, 1995, initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. The same respondent who lodged the police complaint was appointed as the Presenting Officer in the disciplinary proceeding. After an inquiry, a report was forwarded to employee on March 27, 1998, to which he replied on March 6, 1999.

After almost nine years, on July 22, 2008, the respondent authorities imposed the punishment of removal from service on employee. The criminal case against employee (Special Case No. 81 of 1995) continued, and on August 3, 2013, the trial court acquitted him of the charges under Section 409 of the IPC, finding him not guilty.

Following his acquittal, the employee submitted a representation on September 13, 2013, requesting a review of his removal from service. This request was ignored. Subsequently, on June 20, 2016, he submitted another representation. On September 2, 2016, the Deputy Secretary of the Indian Red Cross Society rejected this request for review. In 2017, the employee challenged the rejection by filing an Original Application (OA 511 of 2017) before the Tribunal, seeking relief against the order of removal and the refusal to review. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on February 8, 2023, concluding that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case were not identical and that employee's claim was belated. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition.

The employee argued that the charges leveled against him in the disciplinary proceedings were essentially identical to those in the criminal trial. He contended that the charges in the disciplinary proceeding (particularly Articles I, II, and IV) stemmed from the main charge under Article III, which was also the basis of the criminal allegations.

The employee asserted that his acquittal in the criminal trial negated the basis of the disciplinary proceedings. The employee emphasized that the evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the criminal trial and the disciplinary proceedings were identical. Given that he was acquitted in the criminal trial, he argued that the disciplinary proceedings, which were based on the same evidence, should not have resulted in his removal from service.

The respondents argued that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings were distinct from the criminal charges. They contended that the disciplinary proceedings involved multiple charges (Articles I, II, III, and IV), each relating to different aspects of employee's conduct. Specifically, the charges in the disciplinary proceedings included leaving the workplace without permission, insubordination, and attempting to assist in hiding stolen property, which were broader in scope than the criminal charge under Section 409 of the IPC.

The respondents highlighted that while employee was acquitted in the criminal trial due to a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the disciplinary proceedings were based on a different standard of proof. They argued that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on a reasonable preponderance of evidence and that suspicion and improper conduct of an employee could still form the basis of disciplinary action, even if they did not lead to a criminal conviction.

Findings of the Court

It was acknowledged by the court that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case were closely related. However, it found that the Tribunal erred in concluding that they were entirely dissimilar. The charges in both proceedings stemmed from the same set of facts and events. It was held by the court that the delay in filing the review petition was justified. It was observed that the employee could not have effectively challenged the disciplinary authority's decision until the criminal proceedings were concluded. The employee's immediate action following his acquittal in the criminal trial demonstrated diligence, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the Original Application on grounds of delay was deemed incorrect.

It was emphasized by the court that while disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings, the findings in a criminal trial, especially in cases where the charges are identical, cannot be ignored. It was observed that the employee was acquitted after a full consideration of the evidence in the criminal trial, which negated the basis of the disciplinary charges. The prosecution's inability to establish the charges in the criminal court indicated that the disciplinary action against the employee lacked sufficient foundation.

It was further found by the court that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, particularly given the employee's long service of nearly 30 years with no prior incidents. The doctrine of proportionality was applied and it was observed that a more balanced approach should have been taken, considering the employee's acquittal and the lengthy duration of the proceedings.

Given that the employee had already retired during the pendency of the litigation, the employee was directed by the court not to contest the disciplinary proceeding further. It was sought by the court to bring finality to the case by substituting the punishment of removal with a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The employee was deemed to have been reinstated with continuity in service effective from the date of removal.

It was directed by the court that 50% of the back wages be disbursed to the employee along with all consequential benefits. The order of removal dated July 22, 2008, and the subsequent order rejecting the employee's review request dated September 2, 2016, were set aside by the court. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : WPCT 225 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner : Pritam Chowdhury.

Counsel for the Respondents : Sudip Krishna Datta