2022 SCMR 1770
2022 PLC(CS) 1445
Rr. 2(iii) & 6---Police Order, 2002, Arts. 3 & 4---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 14.4 & 16.3---Concurrent criminal and disciplinary proceedings against a police official accused of violent and brutal murder of an innocent citizen---Accused-police official (petitioner) was convicted and sentenced to death by the Anti-Terrorism Court but the High Court acquitted him from the charge on basis of benefit of doubt---Question was whether after such acquittal, the petitioner's dismissal from service was justified---Held, that after proper inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty in a heinous crime and he was rightly dismissed from service---If the acquittal was found as a result of extending benefit of doubt or some other technical reasons, there was no bar for initiation of departmental enquiry and it was the prerogative rather an onerous responsibility of the employer to consider nature of offence for an appropriate action interdepartmentally---criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings have distinctive characteristics and attributes with regard to the standard of proof---Strict proof 'beyond reasonable doubt" is required in a criminal trial, whereas for departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is that of "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence"---Prosecution in the criminal cases as well as the departmental inquiry on the same allegations can be conducted and continued concurrently at both venues without having any overriding or overlapping effect---Object of criminal trial is to mete out punishment of the offences committed by the accused while departmental inquiry is inaugurated to enquire into the allegations of misconduct in order to keep up and maintain the discipline and decorum in the institution and efficiency of department to strengthen and preserve public confidence---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused with the observations that the police force is a disciplined force with cumbersome accountability and responsibility of maintaining law and public order in the society and populace, therefore, any person who wants to be part of the disciplined force should be a person of utmost integrity and uprightness with unimpeachable/spotless character and clean antecedents; and that a person having criminal antecedents would not be fit to be restored or reinstated to his previous position or post
Concurrent criminal and disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant---Permissible---Civil servant cannot escape departmental proceedings or consequences thereof on account of his acquittal/ exoneration on a criminal charge arising out of the same impugned transaction; these two are entirely different jurisdictions with different standards of proof as well as procedures---criminal prosecution requires strict proof through a narrowly jacketed procedure and, thus, State's failure on the criminal side does not provide shield of double jeopardy to a delinquent officer
0 Comments