Is acquittal in a criminal case on the benefit of doubt a ground for exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings?

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Director General of Police along with the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police have filed the present Intra Court appeal challenging the writ order dated 29.09.2022 passed in WP No.15332 of 2010.

The respondent/writ petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Two charges are framed. The respondent denied the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, domestic enquiry was ordered. The respondent participated in the domestic enquiry to defend his case. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. Accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The respondent preferred an appeal and the appellate authority vide proceeding dated 11.09.2009 reduced the punishment to that of reduction in time scale of pay for two years for two stages without cumulative effect. The review filed by the respondent came to be rejected. Thus the writ petition filed.

The writ Court considered that the criminal case registered against the respondent ended in an order of acquittal on benefit of doubt. The allegations both in the criminal case and department disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. Evidences relied on are also the same. Once the criminal Court acquitted the respondent on benefit of doubt, the said benefit is to be extended in department disciplinary proceedings since in disciplinary proceedings also, the witnesses turned hostile. Considering the said ground, the writ petition came to be allowed. Thus, the State preferred the Intra Court appeal.

The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that mere acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar for imposing punishment on the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The criminal Court acquitted the respondent on the ground of benefit of doubt. Therefore, there is no impediment for the department to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The appellate authority, considering the length of service and further taking note of the fact that it is the first time charge against the respondent, modified the punishment to that of a minor one and therefore, further leniency shown by the writ Court deserves to be set aside.

Ms.V.S.Manimekalai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed by stating that the charges in both criminal and departmental disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. The respondent served long years in the department. Earlier he had not faced any disciplinary proceedings. Though the criminal Court acquitted the respondent on the ground of benefit of doubt, even before the enquiry officer, the witnesses turned hostile and therefore, there is no reason to impose the punishment. The promotion due to the respondent was denied. Considering these factors, the writ Court allowed the writ petition. Thus, the appeal is to be rejected.

This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

The governing principles on departmental disciplinary proceedings are well settled by the constitutional Courts, (a) Departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial are distinct and different (b) Departmental disciplinary proceedings are not dependent on the criminal charges.

The disciplinary authority is empowered to draw inferences on preponderance of probabilities in respect of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the standard of proof required for criminal case is not akin to that of the proof required for punishing a government employee under the Discipline and Appeal rules.

Coming to the present case, based on the complaint given, a criminal case was registered. Criminal case ended with an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The complainant turned hostile in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority had every reason to draw a factual inference that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the complaint on account of the efflux of time. However, the disciplinary authority in the order of punishment dated 02.07.2009 made a categorical finding that “though the above witnesses have turned hostile at the time of oral enquiry in order to favour the delinquent their earlier statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore will hold good. The statement of PWs 6, 7, 8 and 10 has also clearly proved the first count of the charge against the delinquent”. Based on the above finding, the disciplinary authority formed an opinion that the delinquent was not fully exonerated from the charges and the acquittal by the criminal Court was also based on the benefit of doubt. Therefore, applying the principle of “preponderance of probabilities”, the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect was imposed by the disciplinary authority.

In the appeal, the appellate authority, considering the issues and reduced the punishment to that of reduction in time scale of a pay for two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Therefore, the department itself had taken a lenient view considering the length of services rendered by the respondent and taking note of the fact that he has previously not involved in any of the disciplinary proceedings and imposed lesser punishment. The question arises is whether any further leniency is required to be shown by this Court.

Discipline in uniformed forces at no circumstances be compromised. Indiscipline or involvement of the police personnel in any criminal case is undoubtedly to be viewed seriously and to be proceeded in accordance with law. The only point is whether the defence taken by the delinquent officer has been considered by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority. In the present case, the facts, circumstances, length of services, preponderance of probabilities on certain facts are considered by the appellate authority taking note of the totality of the circumstances which cannot be construed as perverse.

The principles on which the writ Court allowed the writ petition is not in consonance with the established principles under service jurisprudence. Thus, the writ order impugned dated 29.09.2022, passed in WP No.15332 of 2010 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.