ARUN PRASADA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the 'Supplementary Memorandum' dated 22.12.2003, which, as per its very caption, is in continuation of the earlier Memorandum dated 29.1.2002 issued under Rule 27 of the IRCON Cor.duct Discipline & Appeal Rules 1981. The Supplementary Memorandum, inter alia, states that the President has decided that an Inquiry may be held in the manner as Lald down in Clauses 3 to 9 of Rules 25 and 26 of the IRCON Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules 1981 read with Rule 11(c) of the IRCON Employees Group Gratuity Trust Rules; the earlier Memorandum does not refer to Rule 11(c). It has also been prayed that the proposed proceedings are vitiated by delay, since the Petitioner had superannuated on 31.1.2002, whereas the Departmental Enquiry is founded on the Memorandum/ Charge-sheet dated 22.12.2003. Court should refrain from interfering with the conclusion of a Departmental Enquiry

(2.) Cases are common-place where it has been contended that once an employee has been acquitted in a criminal case, disciplinary proceedings on the same subject should be dropped forthwith. The view in Kundan Lal Vs. The Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, 1976(1) SLR 133 where Departmental Proceedings had been quashed consequent upon the acquittal of the delinquent employee has not been ubiquitously followed. In Shaik Kasim Vs. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chingleput Dn. and another, AIR 1965 Madras 502 it has been held that if Departmental Proceedings are initiated on identical facts, evidence and charges as those in the criminal proceedings and where the acquittal is substantially on merits, it would be proper for the disciplinary proceedings to be brought to an end. Similar arguments had been raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999 (2) SLR 338, where the differences in the burden of proof required before a domestic enquiry and a criminal Court was clearly emphasised. The Court ruled in favour of continuance of Departmental Proceedings as well as criminal prosecution. In Sulekh Chand & Salek Chand Vs.Commissioner of Police and Ors., JT 1995(1) SC 23 it has been observed that "it is settled law that though the delinquent official may get an acquittal on technical grounds, the authorities are entitled to conduct departmental inquiry on the selfsame allegations rind take appropriate disciplinary action". Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavenekar Vs State of Maharashtra and others, (1997) 3 SCC 636 was decided without reference to Anthony's case(supra). Pending his criminal trial the employee was placed under suspension and consequent upon his acquittal in that prosecution because of insufficient evidence, he was reinstated but consequential benefits were not granted to him The Court opined that- It 3 true that when a government servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to reinstatement. But the question is whether he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits treating the suspension period as duty period, as contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar The object of sanction of law behind prosecution is to put an end to crime against the society and laws thereby intends to restore social order and stability. The purpose of the prosecution of a public servant is to maintain discipline in service, integrity, honesty and truthful conduct in performance of public duty or for modulation of his conduct to further the efficiency in public service. The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public acts. Conduct of a public servant has to be an open book; corrupt would be known to everyone. The reputation would gain notoriety. Though legal evidence may be insufficient to bring home the guilt beyond doubt or foolproof. The act of reinstatement sends ripples among the people in the office/ locality and shows wrong signals for degeneration of morality, integrity and rightful conduct and efficient performance of public duty. The constitutional animation of public faith and credit given to public acts would be undermined. Every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant renders himself accountable to the public. The very cause for suspension of the petitioner and taking punitive action against him was his conduct that led to his prosecution for the offences under the Indian Penal Code If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view this grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.)

(3.) In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs P.C. Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571, it has been opined that "acquittal in the criminal case is not dete mmative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application". These decisions have been discussed although I am fully mindful of the fact that in the case in hand criminal charges have not been framed against the present Petitioner and therefore there was no occasion for his acquittal. The reason for mentioning the series of judgments is to underscore the preponderant view that normally Disciplinary Inquiries should be allowed to run their course.