DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against an erring official by the administration according to the prevailing rules and regulations.  Some activities will lead to take criminal action against the said official by the administration.  Whether disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when delinquent employee is facing the criminal trial;

Whether the decision of criminal court is binding on the disciplinary authorities. Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the closure of criminal case.   These   issues are discussed in this article with reference to decided case laws.                               

In ‘Nelson Motis V. Union of India and another’ – AIR 1992 SC 1981 the Supreme Court held that the nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceedings and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceedings.

In ‘State of Karnataka and another V. T. Venkataramanappa’ – (1996) 6 SCC 455 the Supreme Court held that the acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same misconduct for the reason that in a criminal case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but in the departmental proceeding, such a strict proof of misconduct is not required.

In ‘State of Andhra Pradesh V. K. Allabaksh’ – (2000) 10 SCC 177 the Supreme Court held that acquittal of the respondent shall not be construed as a clear exoneration of the respondent, for the allegations call for in the departmental proceedings, if not already initiated, against him.

In ‘Ajit Kumar Nag V. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Limited’ – AIR 2005 SC 4217 it was held by the Supreme Court that acquittal by a criminal court is not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force.  The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different.  They operate in different field and have different objectives.  The object of the criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender.   The object of the departmental proceeding is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.  In a criminal trial incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence.  Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings.  The degree of proof which is necessary in order to conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency.  The rules relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar.  In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt he cannot convicted by a court of law.   In a departmental enquiry penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability.

In ‘Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Limited’ – AIR 1999 SC 1416 it was held by the Supreme Court that there can be no bar for continuing both the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.  In departmental proceedings, factors prevailing in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many, such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate level of integrity of delinquent or other staff.   The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different from that required in a criminal case.   While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.  Where the charge against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated question of law and fact, it is desirable to say the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case.   In case the criminal case does not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance for ever and may be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude the same at an early date.  The purpose is that if the employee is found not guilty his cause may be vindicated, and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 

In ‘State Bank of India and others V. R.B. Sharma’- AIR 2004 SC 4144 the Supreme Court discussed about the purpose of both proceedings.   The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution is to put to a distinct aspect.  Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence of violation of duty. The offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public.  So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The Departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.

In ‘Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V. Mohamed Yousuf Miya and others’ – (1997) 2 SCC 699 it was held that both proceedings can be held simultaneously unless the gravity of the charges demand staying the disciplinary proceedings till the trial is concluded as complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case.

The Departmental proceedings can be initiated after acquittal in the criminal proceedings. In ‘Union of India and others V. Naman Singh Shekawat’- (2008) 4 SCC 1the Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings can be initiated after acquittal provided the department intended to adduce any evidence which could have prove the charges against delinquent officer.

In ‘Pandian Roadways Corporation V. N. Balakrishnan’ – (2007) 9 SCC 755 the Supreme Court held that the decision of criminal court would be binding on the disciplinary authorities would depend upon other facts as well.  Thus facts, charges and nature of evidence etc., involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry.