Ram Kumar vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the punishment order dated 8.4.1986 whereby the petitioner is dismissed from service after conducting the enquiry. The appellate order dated 3.4.2002 whereby petitioner''s appeal is rejected is also called in question. Shri M.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was subjected to a criminal trial in which he was convicted and sentenced by order dated 31.3.1982. Against this order he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which was registered as Case No. 51/82/Appeal. The appellate Court by order dated 21.8.1982 (Annexure P-1) acquitted the petitioner from the alleged offences under Sections 468, 409 and 471 of IPC. The departmental enquiry is called in question on the ground that once the petitioner is exonerated by the Criminal Court, it was no more open for the respondents to conduct the enquiry.

By taking this Court to the findings of the Appellate Court, Shri Rana submits that the petitioner was rightly exonerated by the Appellate Court and this order got a stamp of approval in Criminal Appeal No. 328/84 (State of M.P. Vs. Onkar Singh) of this Court and, therefore, in view of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, the enquiry on the same set of facts was clearly impermissible.

Per contra, Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate supported the order and submits that if the allegations in the criminal case and the charge sheet are examined minutely, it will be clear that all the allegations against the petitioner are not exactly same. The enquiry officer in his report has dealt with this aspect in extenso and found that the charges are found proved against the petitioner. The allegations are very serious and pertaining to embezzlement and mis-appropriation of Government money. In addition, he submits that there is no procedural flaw in the enquiry. He supported the disciplinary and appellate authorities'' order.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions advanced at bar and perused the record.

This is settled in law that this Court can interfere in a disciplinary proceedings when the decision making process is vitiated. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, . If principles of natural justice are violated in the enquiry and such violation results into grave prejudice to the delinquent employee, interference can be made. If the punishment is harsh and excessive, in rare cases, this Court can interfere into the quantum of punishment. However, this Court is not sitting as an appellate Court to re-examine, re-appreciate and re-weigh the evidence made in the departmental enquiry. In cases of no evidence certainly interference can be made by this Court.

In the present case, the petitioner has based his case on the basis of judgment of Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Antony (supra). If the said judgment is carefully perused along with other judgments delivered by the Supreme Court subsequently, it will be crystal clear that the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:-

(i) The nature of proof required in criminal cases and departmental enquiry are entirely different.

(ii) In domestic enquiry, the principle of preponderance of probability is applicable whereas in criminal cases, the proof beyond reasonable doubt is the basis.

(iii) In criminal cases the person is made accused for violating the provisions of IPC or any other penal law whereas in the domestic enquiry he is made delinquent because of the misconduct committed by him under the relevant Conduct Rules.

The Apex Court has considered the earlier judgments on this point and recently in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, opined as under:-

In the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is even honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. The reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt the accused is assumed to be innocent. Strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the instant case, the respondent was not honorably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since TN Service Rules do not provide so. There are cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that inspite of domestic enquiry if the criminal court acquits an employee honorably he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contained any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the T N Service Rules.

On the basis of the said judgment, it is clear that the interference can be made only when the aforesaid test is satisfied. If the allegations mentioned against the petitioner/offence registered in the criminal case are examined in juxtaposition to the charges made in the departmental enquiry, it will be crystal clear that all the allegations mentioned in the departmental enquiry and criminal case are not actually same. The petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry because of his departmental misconduct. The exoneration in the criminal case may be because of insufficiency of evidence or inadequacy of the evidence. However, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that the offences in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal cases were exactly the same. The enquiry officer in his report has relied on the statements of the prosecution witnesses and opined that the use of temporary embezzlement is established against the petitioner. In addition, there are certain allegations which were not subject matter of the criminal case and were also found proved against the petitioner. It is apt to quote the following finding of the enquiry officer:-

Thus, it is clear that the charges against the petitioner in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry were not exactly identical. The petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry because of alleged misconduct. The findings of the criminal Court do not cover the entire aspect of departmental enquiry. It is not a case of no evidence in the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , I am unable to hold that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were unsustainable or impermissible. There is no perversity established against the findings of the enquiry officer. In view of aforesaid findings, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate. Even in cases of temporary embezzlement the punishment of dismissal is an adequate punishment. In the opinion of this Court, the Apex Court in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, opined about corruption in following words:-

It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys the societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, Jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality.

The appellate authority has not also committed any error of law in upholding the punishment. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I find no merits in the petition. The petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No cost.