A question is always raised as to whether the employee dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings , is liable to be reinstated on aquttal by a criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings. This question has been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the judgement delivered on 28-11-2013 in the case of State of West Bengal v/s Shanakr Ghosh.
The respndent was charged with offences under Indian Penal Code read with provisons in Arms Act. He was arrested and in jail for about 3 months and later released on bail. He was suspended and a regular disciplinary proceedings were held . The charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were almost identical. As a result of disciplinary proceedings the employee came to be dismissed from service. His appeal was also dismissed.Later on criminal case he was aquitted. He approached the tribunal praying for issue of directions to reinstate him in view of his aquittal.His prayer was allowed and his reinstatement was ordered.The state government filed an appeal to West Bengal High Court and the same came to be dismissed. The state Government being aggrieved, filed an S.L.P. to the supreme court challenging the order of the tribunal and High Court.
The supreme court after hearing the arguments and going through the evidence and the judgment in criminal case found out that it was not a clean and honorable acquittal and held that on the basis of such acqittal, the reinstatement of an employee dismissed from service after holding regular departmental proceedings cannot be ordered. The supreme court held as under,
" Even if there is identity of charges levelled against the respondent before the criminal court as well as before the Enquiry officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a police offcer by a criminal court shall not be a bar to the award of the departmental punishmnet." and the appeal filed by the state government was allowed and the orderes of the Tribunal and the High court was set aside.
The above said judgement is available on this blog under caption "Recent and Important ". The same can be downloaded for study.
The respndent was charged with offences under Indian Penal Code read with provisons in Arms Act. He was arrested and in jail for about 3 months and later released on bail. He was suspended and a regular disciplinary proceedings were held . The charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were almost identical. As a result of disciplinary proceedings the employee came to be dismissed from service. His appeal was also dismissed.Later on criminal case he was aquitted. He approached the tribunal praying for issue of directions to reinstate him in view of his aquittal.His prayer was allowed and his reinstatement was ordered.The state government filed an appeal to West Bengal High Court and the same came to be dismissed. The state Government being aggrieved, filed an S.L.P. to the supreme court challenging the order of the tribunal and High Court.
The supreme court after hearing the arguments and going through the evidence and the judgment in criminal case found out that it was not a clean and honorable acquittal and held that on the basis of such acqittal, the reinstatement of an employee dismissed from service after holding regular departmental proceedings cannot be ordered. The supreme court held as under,
" Even if there is identity of charges levelled against the respondent before the criminal court as well as before the Enquiry officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a police offcer by a criminal court shall not be a bar to the award of the departmental punishmnet." and the appeal filed by the state government was allowed and the orderes of the Tribunal and the High court was set aside.
The above said judgement is available on this blog under caption "Recent and Important ". The same can be downloaded for study.
Very nice judgment
ReplyDeleteIf the case is under article 311 of Indian Constitution then the employee will joined back.
ReplyDeleteYes the confusion due to acquittal. Several type hospitable. Benifit of doubt .discharge. Technical grund of acquittal another confusion regarding self same fact which confusing.the invitation of both proceeding more time is neefed to hundustand every term to understand the trur meaning several times to undustand
ReplyDeleteYes the confusion due to acquittal. Several type hospitable. Benifit of doubt .discharge. Technical grund of acquittal another confusion regarding self same fact which confusing.the invitation of both proceeding more time is neefed to hundustand every term to understand the trur meaning several times to undustand
ReplyDelete