Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a member of the Railway Protection Force, was involved in a criminal case along with three others for theft of copper stripes. He was acquitted in the criminal case on benefit of doubt. Subsequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the same charge. The inquiry officer examined witnesses including one of the co-accused, Sham K. Singh. Based on the evidence, the disciplinary authority found the charge proved and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 28.6.1991. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 5.4.1992, and his mercy appeal remained undecided. He then filed a civil suit which was withdrawn on 21.7.2001, and thereafter filed the present writ petition on 1.10.2001. The petitioner contended that the charge of theft was not proved, that the co-accused should not have been examined as witnesses, and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The High Court held that acquittal in a criminal case on benefit of doubt does not bar disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof is different. The court also held that there is no bar to examining co-accused as witnesses in departmental proceedings. On proportionality, the court noted that the petitioner was a member of the Railway Protection Force and the charge of theft of copper stripes was serious, involving lack of integrity. The court found that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - Standard of Proof - Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not preclude departmental inquiry as the standard of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings is different - The disciplinary authority can independently arrive at a finding of guilt based on preponderance of probability even if criminal court acquitted on benefit of doubt (Paras 1-5). B) Service Law - Evidence - Examination of Co-Accused as Witness - Permissibility - In departmental proceedings, co-accused can be examined as witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon - There is no bar under the Evidence Act as it is not strictly applicable to disciplinary inquiries (Para 4). C) Service Law - Punishment - Proportionality - Theft by Security Personnel - Dismissal - Punishment of dismissal for theft of copper stripes by a member of Railway Protection Force is not disproportionate - The nature of duty requires high integrity and theft by a security personnel is a serious misconduct warranting major penalty (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order are valid despite the petitioner's acquittal in criminal case and whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of dismissal from service.
Law Points
- Acquittal in criminal case does not bar disciplinary proceedings
- Disciplinary authority can rely on evidence of co-accused
- Punishment of dismissal for theft by security personnel not disproportionate
