Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically nullify departmental disciplinary punishment.

The petitioner, a Grade-I Police Constable serving at Flower Bazaar Police Station, was involved in a criminal case concerning kidnapping and dacoity and was remanded to judicial custody.

Although he was subsequently acquitted by the Criminal Court, departmental disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(b) were conducted, in which three witnesses were examined and the charges were held proved.

The fourth respondent consequently removed him from service by order dated 11 March 2019.

His appeal and review were rejected, the review having been dismissed on 5 April 2021.

The petitioner later sought reinstatement on the basis of his acquittal, but his request was rejected by endorsement dated 7 October 2023.

He therefore challenged both the removal order and the consequential endorsement under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether an acquittal in the criminal proceedings, where the subject matter and evidence allegedly overlap with the departmental charges, automatically entitles the petitioner to reinstatement in service

Whether the departmental order removing the petitioner from service was liable to be quashed in the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court applied the principle that acquittal by a Criminal Court does not, by itself, bar an employer from taking disciplinary action under the applicable service rules, because the standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs from that in departmental proceedings.

Relying on Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia, (2005) 7 SCC 764, the Court held that a criminal acquittal does not automatically invalidate a departmental finding of misconduct.

The Court further applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, under which it cannot re-appreciate disciplinary evidence as an appellate court and may interfere principally where the decision is perverse or made by an incompetent authority.

The Court found that the petitioner’s principal ground was his acquittal in the criminal case and that he had not identified any specific procedural irregularity in the departmental inquiry.

The departmental proceedings had independently resulted in a finding of guilt after examination of three witnesses, and the applicable standard of proof was distinct from that governing the criminal prosecution.

Consequently, the acquittal did not automatically nullify the departmental punishment or create a right to reinstatement.

Since the Court could not re-assess the evidence as an appellate forum and found no demonstrated perversity or incompetence on the part of the disciplinary authority, judicial review was not warranted.

It held that the petitioner’s acquittal did not, by itself, entitle him to reinstatement and that no ground had been established for interfering with the departmental removal order or the subsequent endorsement.

The writ petition was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no order as to costs was made.