Acquittal In Criminal Case Ipso Facto Has No Effect On Departmental Enquiry As The Standard Of Proof Varies: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto has no effect on departmental enquiry.
The court was considering a writ petition filed by wife of an employee in CISF challenging an order of removal from service.
The Single Bench of Justice Ananda Sen Stated that “Acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto has no effect on departmental enquiry as the standard of proof required in criminal trial and departmental proceedings are different. In the criminal trial the charges has to be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings charges can be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability.”
Adding to that the court noted, “In cases where one of the charges are same in departmental enquiry and criminal trial courts can consider the outcome of criminal trial in certain circumstances.”
Advocate Ritu Kumar appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar and central government counsel Shiv Kumar Sharma represented the respondent.
Facts Of The Case
The Husband of the Petitioner was posted at the C.I.S.F. Unit, B.C.C.L. Dhanbad, he was taken into custody which led to his suspension from duty. He was served with a charge memo with four charges against him. From the material available on record the departmental charges against him are:
(i) Firstly, that he failed to turn up on duty,
(ii) Secondly he allegedly pilfered 11 pistons from the Zonal Transport Workshop,
(iii) Thirdly he remained absent without leave for 36 days and
(iv) The last charge is that inspite of the earlier misconducts he has not shown any improvement in his behaviour which shows that he is a habitual offender.
A departmental inquiry was initiated, but the inquiry officer was changed. Eventually, the inquiry report was submitted. He claimed that his request to examine key witnesses was denied. Despite this, he was terminated from his service.
The writ petition was partly allowed with the modification of the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement considering the fact of the petitioner’s husband. Stated that “it will not be proper to relegate the widow to the disciplinary proceeding.”
Cause Title: Jayanti Devi Urmaliya v. Union Of India through secretary [W.P.(S) No.4236 of 2015]
Appearance:
Petitioner Advocate Ritu Kumar
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar, Central Government Counsel Shiv Kumar Sharma
Click here to read/download the Order
