C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Whether departmental proceedings can
be initiated even after the acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court
Acquittal of an employee cannot
operate as res judicata to a disciplinary inquiry into the same charges of
which he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court and Domestic
Tribunal- both operate in different fields. An accused may be acquitted for
want of proper evidence or benefit of doubt, but a Domestic Tribunal can rely
even on hearsay evidence. Therefore, the decision of the Criminal Court cannot
operate as res judicata and certainly not conclusive so far as the disciplinary
proceedings is concerned. Accordingly, the initiation of disciplinary
proceeding after the acquittal of an employee cannot be violative of any
fundamental rights of the employee or cannot be branded as arbitrary or mala
fide.
[O.R.T.C.
Ltd. v. Loknath Patra 1988 Lab IC 595 (600) (Ori)(D.B.).]
Merely because the accused is
acquitted, the power of the authority, to continue the departmental inquiry is
not taken away nor its discretion any way fettered
The question whether or not the
departmental inquiry pending against the employee involved in the criminal case
should be continued even after his acquittal in a criminal case is a matter
which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the
finding given by the Criminal Court. Normally where the accused is acquitted
honourably and completely exonerated of the charges, it is not expedient to
continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds or
evidence. However merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the
authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor
its discretion any way fettered.
[Corporation of City of Nagpur and
another v. Ram Chandra G. Modek and another, AIR 1984 S.C. 656.]
It is not in dispute that the proposed
departmental inquiry is also related to the self same offence under Section 5
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment acquitting the appellant
of the charges under Section 5 (2) became final and it is clearly indicated
that it was on merits. Therefore, once the acquittal was on merits, the
necessary consequence would be that the delinquent is entitled to reinstatement
as if there is no blot on his service and the need for the departmental inquiry
is obviated. It is settled law though the delinquent official may get an
acquittal on technical grounds, the authorities are entitled to conduct
departmental inquiry on the self-same allegations and take appropriate
disciplinary action.
[Sulekh Chand and Sulekh Chand v.
Commissioner of Police and others 1994 (5) SLR 742.]
There is no bar to hold departmental
proceedings in respect of a charge which was not covered by the acquittal order
by the court
The respondent was prosecuted for
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act for holding assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income. There were also charges
relating to his having acquired assets without permission of the Government in
violation of the rules. In an application moved before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal held that if the respondent was acquitted
in the criminal case, departmental inquiry cannot be held for the very same
charge. The respondent was acquited in respect of the charge of acquiring
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Tribunal also held
that proceedings can be held in regard to other charges. The Government ordered
that further action in the criminal case of allegation of disproportionate
assets be dropped. A fresh charge memo was issued in regard to violation of the
rules by acquiring and disposing of properties without informing and taking
permission from the Government. This was also challenged and the said petition
was allowed by the Tribunal. This order of the Tribunal was challenged in the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and held
that there was no infirmity in the fresh charge memo. relating to the acquiring
or disposing of properties without permission of the Government.
[State of A.P. & another v. C.
Muralidhar J.T. 1997 (7) SC 59.]
Sir
ReplyDeleteWho will ordered departmental proceedings against deliquent official when court let from acquittal and which stage it begins?🙏
Publish the book sir
ReplyDelete