Acquittal On Failure To Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt Does Not Oust Disciplinary Proceedings Where Test Is Preponderance Of Probabilities: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that an acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities.

Justice Anu Malhotra observed that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not prevent the management to proceed with the departmental proceedings against an employee.

"…the acquittal in criminal proceedings in which the guilt of a person has to be held to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, does not preclude the disciplinary proceedings in which the charges of misconduct have to be established on a preponderance of probabilities to continue and to consequentially result into a penalty inclusive of a penalty of termination of service in the event of an employee having been held to have violated the service rules," the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and also against the order of the Executive Engineer, PWD Division, whereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated apart from a prayer that the respondent be directed to take the petitioner back into service with back wages and all other consequential benefits.

Vide the impugned order, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the management had conducted a proper and fair enquiry against the workman and that there was nothing on the record even to suggest that there had been any violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also observed that the workman had fully participated in the enquiry proceedings and was duly assisted by the defence assistant who had fully cross examined all witnesses of the Department and had also examined defence witnesses.

The petitioner had challenged the finding of the Presiding Officer by submitting that though the petitioner had been permitted to present his case, the enquiry officer had proceeded with a pre-decided mind as to its outcome in a biased manner solely with a view to terminate his services and had failed to consider his case on merits.

It was submitted by the petitioner that he was acquitted by the criminal Court of the offences with which he had been charged that is of the alleged commission of an offence punishable under sec.

342 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to which, the FIR was registered on 09.05.1991, and that he was acquitted along with other co-workers vide judgment dated 04.12.1999.

On the other hand, it was argued that the management could not have punished him on the basis of the enquiry proceedings in relation to the very same incident of the date 09.05.1991 qua which he had already been acquitted.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the Enquiry Committee had followed all enquiry procedures and charges against the petitioner were proved.

It was also submitted that merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial was no ground to set aside the Departmental Enquiry findings which had conclusively established that the petitioner had committed misconduct and thus, after a fair and proper enquiry held by the Department of the charge having been held to have been established against him, he had been punished for his misbehavior by termination of his service.

It was also argued that the acquittal by the criminal Court does not debar the management from punishing the workman on the basis of enquiry proceedings and that the acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a person to automatic reinstatement because disciplinary action can be taken after acquittal as well.

The Court was of the view that in the instant matter, it was rightly held vide the impugned award that the rules of natural justice were complied with.

It was thus concluded that there was no ground to set aside the findings of misconduct and the penalty imposed of termination of service on the petitioner as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

"In these circumstances, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned award dated 20.10.2010 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi," the Court ordered.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: SATISH SACHIV BABA v. CPWD (M.R.D.)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 409

Click Here To Read Order