Departmental Proceedings Based On Same Evidence Cannot Survive Once Plea Of Alibi Is Accepted In Criminal Trial: Orissa High Court

The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Single Judge, which had set aside the dismissal of a police constable and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed: “The important aspect of this matter is the plea of alibi taken by the respondent, which has been established by him by cogent evidence and believed by the trial court. If the plea of alibi is believed by the trial Court in the judgment dated 26.11.2018, which has attained finality, the entire genesis of the case is washed away on facts. Therefore, it could be safely inferred that departmental proceedings and their conclusion are based on no evidence”.

Additional Government Advocate Debaraj Mohanty represented the appellant, while Advocate Srinivas Mohanty represented the respondent.

Background

The respondent, a constable in the Odisha Police, was implicated in a criminal case under the NDPS Act relating to alleged involvement in the transportation of contraband. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the same allegations of misconduct.

During the criminal trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses to establish the alleged conspiracy and involvement of the respondent. The defence, however, raised a plea of alibi, supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony, showing that the respondent was undergoing official training at the relevant time.

The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that there was no material linking the respondent to the offence and accepted the plea of alibi, resulting in acquittal.

Despite such an acquittal, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental inquiry based on the same allegations and evidence, ultimately dismissing the respondent from service. The appellate authority affirmed the dismissal.

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court, where the Single Judge set aside the dismissal, holding that the departmental findings were unsustainable.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that in the present case, both the criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings were founded on identical facts and relied upon the same set of witnesses. It was observed that the very witnesses examined in the departmental inquiry were also examined before the criminal court, and their evidence had been thoroughly evaluated in the course of the trial.

The Court emphasised that the trial court had not merely acquitted the respondent on technical grounds but had recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the respondent and the alleged offence.

The Court further noted that the respondent had successfully established his plea of alibi by producing cogent documentary evidence demonstrating his presence at a training programme during the relevant period.

“The learned Single Judge, upon examining the rival submissions advanced by the parties and upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, placed reliance upon the principles laid down in several judgments. Upon such consideration, the learned Single Judge came to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquittal recorded by the criminal court was not merely technical in nature but was based on failure of the prosecution to establish the involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence”, the Court remarked.

The Court held that once the plea of alibi stands accepted and attains finality, the foundational allegation of presence and involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence stands negated, stating that “the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the criminal case makes it abundantly clear that the respondent was not even present at the spot, which was the basis on which he was being proceeded departmentally”.

The Court further observed that the inquiry officer had relied upon the same evidence which had already been disbelieved by the criminal court, without any independent or additional material to sustain the charge.

The Court concluded that the “eventual conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the departmental action against the respondent cannot be faulted with on law as well as facts”, while further holding that “this is clearly not a case for interference by this Court”.

Conclusion

The High Court held that in view of the acceptance of the plea of alibi and the categorical findings recorded by the criminal court, the very foundation of the departmental proceedings stood extinguished, rendering the disciplinary action unsustainable.

It upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, setting aside the dismissal order and granting reinstatement with consequential service and financial benefits.

The writ appeal filed by the State was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Bansidhar Bariki

Click here to read/download Judgment