Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5142 OF 2009
Baljinder Pal Kaur … Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
18.7.2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh, whereby said Court has dismissed the Civil Writ
Petition No. 12307 of 2008, filed by the appellant, and
declined to interfere with the order of her dismissal from
Signature Not Verified
service.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2015.09.10
15:00:34 IST
Reason:
perused the papers on record.
Page 2 of 10
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Baljinder Pal
Kaur was Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police. She
was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.5.2005, after
departmental enquiry was held and she was found guilty of
charge that she took Rs.8.00 lacs from one Gurjit Singh son of
Bahadur Singh of District Ludhiana, and got him sent illegally
to United States of America, with her husband Sukhdev Singh
@ Sukha and three others.
4. From the papers on record, it reveals that apart from
initiation of departmental enquiry, a First Information Report
No. 81 was registered against the appellant on 16.12.2003
with Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, in respect of offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation
charge sheet was filed against her in the court. Meanwhile, in
the departmental enquiry, statements of witnesses of the
department, and that of defence produced on behalf of the
appellant, were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, who
Page 3 of 10
submitted his report dated 8.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) with the
finding that the appellant was guilty of the charge. An
opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant also before
awarding the punishment of dismissal. The departmental
appeal was dismissed on 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), as
mentioned above, whereafter the appellant availed remedy of
filing revision before Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar,
and the same was dismissed by said authority on 8.5.2006
(Annexure P-5). Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed by the
appellant before the Director General of Police, without any
success.
5. On the other hand, the criminal trial proceeded before
the Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, in which the appellant
was ultimately acquitted vide order dated 23.2.2007.
6.
It is argued before us on behalf of the appellant that after
acquittal of the appellant by the trial court, the High Court
has erred in law in not allowing the writ petition seeking
quashing of dismissal of the appellant from service. Reliance
is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decisions
of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Page 4 of 10
1
Mines Ltd. and another , G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat
2
and others , and Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and
3
others .
7.
In paragraph 22 of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), this
Court has culled out following principles: -
“(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings
in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as
there is no bar in their being conducted
simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case are based on identical and similar set
of facts and the charge in the criminal case against
the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions of law and fact, it
would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal
case is grave and whether complicated questions of
fact and law are involved in that case, will depend
upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case
launched against the employee on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him during
investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above
cannot be considered in isolation to stay the
departmental proceedings but due regard has to be
1
(1999) 3 SCC 679
2
(2006) 5 SCC 446
3
(2007) 1 SCC 566
Page 5 of 10
given to the fact that the departmental proceedings
cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its
disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental
proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of
the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed
and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an
early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty
his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found
guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the
earliest.”
8. The law laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) is
followed in rest of the cases referred to above, i.e. G.M. Tank
(supra) and Jasbir Singh (supra). But in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case before us, we are of the
opinion that the above mentioned cases are of little help to the
appellant.
9. What is relevant in the present case which distinguishes
the case of the appellant from the above mentioned cases is
Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, which reads as under: -
“ 16.3 Action following on a judicial acquittal : -
(1) When a Police Officer has been tried and
acquitted by a criminal court he shall not be
punished departmentally on the same charge or on
a different charge upon the evidence cited in the
criminal case, whether actually led or not, unless: -
Page 6 of 10
(a) the criminal charge has failed on technical
grounds; or
(b) in the opinion of the court or of the
Superintendent of Police, the prosecution
witnesses have been won over; or
(c) the Court has held in its judgment that an
offence was actually committed and that
suspicion rests upon the police officer
concerned; or
(d) the evidence cited in the criminal case
discloses facts unconnected with the charge
before the court which justify departmental
proceedings on a different charge; or
(e) additional evidence admissible under rule
16.25(1) in departmental proceedings is
available.”
(2) …………………………………………………..”
10. Rule quoted above provides that when a police officer has
been tried and acquitted by a criminal court, he shall not be
punished departmentally on the same charge subject to
certain conditions. In the present case, as is evident from
Rule 16.3, requirement of not punishing the officer
departmentally is not absolute, and it hinges on either of the
five conditions mentioned above [(a) to (e)]. From the copy of
the order of acquittal passed by the Judge, Special Court,
Page 7 of 10
Ludhiana (Annexure P-6), it is evident that the prosecution
witnesses have turned hostile, and they appear to have been
won over.
11.
In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v.
4
Mehar Singh , this Court, in paragraph 24, has observed as
under: -
“ 24. ……….While the standard of proof in a criminal
case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the
proof in a departmental proceeding is
preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal
cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn
hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit.
…...”
12. In Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v.
5
S. Samuthiram , this Court, in paragraph 26, has held as
under: -
“ 26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of
any provision in the service rules for reinstatement,
if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal
court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim
any benefit including reinstatement. 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 proceeding is
entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of
establishing the guilt of the accused is on the
4
(2013) 7 SCC 685
5
(2013) 1 SCC 598
Page 8 of 10
prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed
to be innocent. It is settled law that the 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 case on hand
the prosecution did not take steps to examine many
of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the
complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court,
therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of
doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the
instant case, the respondent was honourably
acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so,
he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the
Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.”
13.
In Union of India and another v. Bihari Lal
6
Sidhana , this Court has observed that it is true that the
respondent was acquitted by the criminal court but acquittal
does not automatically gave him the right to be reinstated into
the service.
14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any
illegality in the order passed by the High Court declining to
interfere with the order of dismissal from service on the basis
of evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry.
6
(1997) 4 SCC 385
Page 9 of 10
15. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
……………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J.
New Delhi; [Prafulla C. Pant]
September 8, 2015.
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.5 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5142/2009
BALJINDER PAL KAUR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 08/09/2015 This appeal was called on for judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanchar Anand, AAG
Mr. Apoorv Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant pronounced the judgment
of the Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His
Lordship.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)