P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraju and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (16 Sep 2019)

Acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against delinquent officer

MANU/SC/1262/2019

Service

The judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of Respondent No. 1 from the service was set aside is the subject matter of this Appeal. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in the year 1997. Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, framed a charge against the Respondent.

The Respondent submitted his explanation to the charge. After conducting an inquiry, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, who was nominated as the Inquiry Officer, held that, the charge against Respondent No. 1 was proved. The Lokayukta examined the inquiry report and approved the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Having regard to the serious misconduct committed by Respondent No. 1, the Lokayukta imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under Clause VIII of Regulation No. 9 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Discipline, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was allowed by a learned single Judge by a judgment. The Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant is before this Court.

Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the Rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different.

Interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that, the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court, if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct Rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the Rules of evidence.

The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court. The Appeal is allowed.

Tags : DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY   DISMISSAL   MISCONDUCT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved