Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1673 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. Union Of India

2007-09-14

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 2.7.2007, Annexure P. 15, dismissing the application of the petitioner against the order of termination of his services. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking on 29.11.1991. On 14.10.1993, the bus driven by him met with an accident, resulting in death of a girl. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 27.10.1993 and a criminal case was registered. Departmental proceedings were also separately initiated against him. Vide enquiry report dated 26.12.1998, misconduct of the petitioner was held to have been proved. The Director, Transport Chandigarh imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 31.3.1999, Annexure P. 5. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 20.4.2001, Annexure P. 6. 3. On petitioners appeal, the appellate authority directed issuance of inter se notice for enhancement of punishment. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 10.7.2003, Annexure P. 9 was served on the petitioner and finally impugned order dated 11.3.2005, Annexure P. 11, terminating services of the petitioner, was passed. The petitioner filed an application before the CAT, which has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case on the same charge, could not be punished in departmental proceedings. Reliance on the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 5.5 Lacs to the heirs of the deceased who died in the accident, was not justified. Review by the appellate authority under Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short `the Rules) could be only within six months. 5. We have considered the submissions made and perused the record. 6. The CAT has taken the view that the present case will not be covered by Rule 21 but Rule 19 of the Rules, which confers independent power of enhancement of sentence even in appeal of an employee and in such a situation, limitation for review provided under Rule 21 of the Rules was not applicable. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State of Bank of India and another, AIR 2005 SC 314. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State of Bank of India and another, AIR 2005 SC 314. It was further held that the petitioner was found to be under the influence of liquor while driving and such a misconduct did not call for a lenient penalty. Acquittal in the criminal case did not affect departmental proceedings, where parameters for holding the charge to be proved, are different. 7. We are in agreement with the view taken by the CAT and do not find any ground for interference with the same. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment of the Karnataka High Court in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. SD Ghatage, 2001(3) SCT 429, judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ravuru Babu Rao v. General Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Madras, 1997(2). SCT 578 , judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, 1999(2) SCT 660 and Sulekh Chand and Selek Chand v. Commissioner of Police, 1995(2) SCT 411, to submit that acquittal in criminal case should have been taken into account in departmental proceedings; judgments, of this Court in Barkat Singh and others v. Hans Raj Pandit, driver and others, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 263, holding that Claims Tribunal was not a Court but a quasi-judicial Tribunal and in Inder Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2004(1) RSJ 615 , to submit that order of the appellate authority directing enhancement of punishment was covered by power of review under Rule 21. 9. As far as judgments on the question of acquittal being taken into account are concerned, the parameters in departmental proceedings, being different, notwithstanding acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal trial, if his misconduct was proved in departmental proceedings, departmental proceedings were justified. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable in view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, AIR 2006 SC 2840 , wherein judgment in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, AIR 1999 SC 1416, was also considered. It was observed : "10. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable in view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. v. Mansaram Nainwal, AIR 2006 SC 2840 , wherein judgment in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, AIR 1999 SC 1416, was also considered. It was observed : "10. The position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case, its effect on departmental proceedings and re-instatement in service has been dealt with by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana (1997(4) SCC 385). It was held in paragraph 5 as follows : "5. It is true that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal Court but acquittal does not automatically give him the right to be re- instated into the service. It would still be open to the competent authority to take decision whether the delinquent government servant can be taken into service or disciplinary action should be taken under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or under the Temporary Service Rules. Admittedly, the respondent had been working as a temporary government servant before he was kept under suspension. The termination order indicated the facture that he, by then, was under suspension. It is only a way of describing him as being under suspension when the order came to be passed but that does not constitute any stigma. Mere acquittal of government employee does not automatically entitle the government servant to reinstatement. As stated earlier, it would be open to the appropriate competent authority to take a decision whether the enquiry into the conduct is required to be done before directing reinstatement or appropriate action should be taken as per law, if otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only a temporary government servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Re-instatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money." xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. Unfortunately, the High Court also not discussed the factual scenario as to how the Anthonys case (supra) had any application. Re-instatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money." xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. Unfortunately, the High Court also not discussed the factual scenario as to how the Anthonys case (supra) had any application. As noted above, the position in law relating to acquittal in a criminal case and question of re-instatement has been dealt with in Sidhanas case (supra). As the High Court had not dealt with the factual scenario and as to how the Anthonys case (supra) helps the respondents, we think it appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. Since the matter is pending for long, it would be in the interest of the parties if the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order." 10. Again in Commr. of Police, Delhi v. Narender Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1800, it was observed : 12. It is not in dispute that the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case and in a departmental proceedings are distinct and different. Whereas in a criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt, in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and others, (2002) SCC 555. 13. It is now well settled by reason of a catena of decisions of this Court that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to (sic) a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed. 14. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani and others, (2005)5 SCC 100) , this Court held : "It is trite that a judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the employees by giving benefit of doubt per se would not be binding upon the employer.... 14. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani and others, (2005)5 SCC 100) , this Court held : "It is trite that a judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the employees by giving benefit of doubt per se would not be binding upon the employer.... Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762; Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and others, (2005) 7 SCC 764." As regards judgment in Barkat Singh (supra), holding that the Tribunal was a quasi-judicial is concerned, we are of the view that since misconduct of the petitioner was proved in departmental proceedings, we are of the view that judgment has no relevance for decision of the present case. Issue in the said judgment was maintainability of a revision. 11. As regards judgment in Inder Singh Brar (supra), we find that judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur (supra) is subsequent to DB judgment of this Court in Inder Singh Brar (Supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. 12. In Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed : "14..... The appellate authority had enhanced the punishment imposed by following the procedure laid down in the service Rules and we see no reason to interfere with the same. As already noticed, the appellant had himself admitted his misconduct and therefore, there is no reason why the appellate authoritys finding on charge No. 5 should not be accepted......" 13. Thus, irrespective of power of review, the appellate authority considering the appeal of the employee could enhance the punishment by following the procedure. Power of review is independent and separate power under Rule 21 and thus, the present case was clearly covered by Rule 19 and limitation prescribed under Rule 21 did not control the power under Rule 19. 14. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.