Summary
A Rajasthan Police constable was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found that, while off duty, drunk and in uniform, he had extorted a motorcyclist, seized his motorcycle and fired a gun. He was later convicted under Section 392 IPC and the Arms Act, but the appellate court acquitted him on benefit of doubt. The High Court quashed his dismissal solely because of the acquittal, relying on Capt. M. Paul Anthony. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal. Departmental and criminal proceedings apply different standards of proof, so an acquittal does not of itself entitle an employee to reinstatement. M. Paul Anthony turned on its unique facts, and this acquittal was not honourable.
Issues
- Whether a police constable dismissed after a departmental inquiry must be reinstated because he was later acquitted on the same facts by a criminal court
- Whether Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. lays down a rule of general application
Held
- Departmental and criminal proceedings are different. Misconduct may be found on a preponderance of probabilities, while a criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. An acquittal therefore does not ipso facto entitle a dismissed employee to reinstatement. (¶¶ 8, 11)
- Capt. M. Paul Anthony rested on its unique facts. The employee there received no subsistence allowance and could not take part in an ex parte inquiry, stay of the departmental proceedings was refused, and the raid and recovery forming the common basis of both cases stood disproved. It does not lay down a law of universal application. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Whether misconduct is made out is primarily for the disciplinary authority. The court examines the fairness of the procedure, natural justice, the presence of some evidence and perversity, and does not re-appreciate the evidence. (¶ 12)
- Where acquittal has led the Court to leave a reinstatement undisturbed, the acquittal was usually honourable. Here the constable was convicted at trial and acquitted on appeal only on benefit of doubt. Because the inquiry was otherwise upheld, the High Court erred in quashing the dismissal. (¶¶ 5, 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Single Judge's order and the Division Bench's order of 09.09.2020 directing reinstatement were set aside, restoring the dismissal.