Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which set aside the dismissal of Respondent No.1, Sri C. Nagaraju, from service. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in 1974 and promoted to Junior Engineer in 1997. On 21.06.2003, a charge was framed against him by the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, alleging that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.750 from a complainant, Sri K. Chandrasekhar, for providing electrical power supply. After a departmental inquiry, the charge was proved, and the Lokayukta imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under the relevant regulations. The dismissal was affirmed by the appellate authority. Respondent No.1 was also tried in a criminal court under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but was acquitted as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The High Court, relying on Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, set aside the dismissal, holding that the charges in both proceedings were the same and the acquittal should bind the disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred. The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting that in the present case, the evidence in the departmental inquiry was different from that in the criminal trial. In the criminal trial, witnesses turned hostile, leading to acquittal, but in the departmental inquiry, the complainant and other witnesses deposed against the respondent. The Court reiterated that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent, with different standards of proof (preponderance of probabilities vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt). Therefore, the acquittal did not bar the disciplinary action, and the dismissal was valid. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of dismissal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Trial - Standard of Proof - Acquittal in criminal case does not debar departmental proceedings; the two operate in different fields with different objectives and standards of proof - The disciplinary authority is not bound by the criminal court's acquittal if the evidence in the departmental inquiry is different and sufficient to prove misconduct - Held that the High Court erred in relying on Captain M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank as the facts were distinguishable (Paras 9-11). B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Departmental Inquiry - Evidence - Where prosecution witnesses turn hostile in criminal trial leading to acquittal, but the same witnesses depose against the employee in departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority can rely on such evidence - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the dismissal order was valid (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of dismissal from service solely on the ground that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court, despite the evidence in the departmental inquiry being different from that in the criminal trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the order of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from service.
Law Points
- Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent
- standard of proof differs
- acquittal in criminal case does not bar disciplinary action
- evidence in departmental inquiry can be different from criminal trial
