Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 305 (CAL)

Sajal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal

2014-04-01

NISHITA MHATRE, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner has challenged the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 720 of 2013 dated 13th December, 2013. 2. This case has a chequered history. The Petitioner was working with the West Bengal Police as an Assistant Sub Inspector. A criminal case was registered in which the Petitioner was implicated for having committed offences punishable under sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. This case was initiated on 1st November, 2000. A departmental enquiry was also started against the Petitioner on 6th December, 2000. He was issued a charge sheet. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who held the enquiry and submitted his findings on 17th April, 2002. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the Enquiry Officers findings that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. 3. By an order dated 21st December, 2002 the Disciplinary Officer dismissed the Petitioner from service. Aggrieved by that order the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. That appeal was dismissed and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed on 4th March, 2010. 4. The Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 28.01.2011. He submitted a representation to the Authorities for restatement in service on the ground that his acquittal by the Criminal Court absolves him of the alleged misconduct. 5. However, that prayer was rejected. He then filed O.A. No. 564 of 2011 thereafter before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The reliefs sought by him in this application were as follows : (a) An order directing Respondent no.4 to forthwith revoke, rescind and/or withdraw the order of dismissal passed by Respondent no.4 on 21.12.09 which is Annexure "E" to this application. (b) An order directing Respondent no.4 to forthwith revoke, withdraw and/or rescind appellate order dated 25.02.2010 passed by Respondent no.3 rejecting statutory appeal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure "H" to this application. (c) Any other order or orders as to this Ld. Tribunal may seem fit and proper. 6. The Tribunal disposed of the application on 11th February, 2013 by quashing the order of 31st March, 2011 and granting liberty to the Petitioner to submit a fresh application in support of his prayer for reinstatement in service along with a copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court. 7. Tribunal may seem fit and proper. 6. The Tribunal disposed of the application on 11th February, 2013 by quashing the order of 31st March, 2011 and granting liberty to the Petitioner to submit a fresh application in support of his prayer for reinstatement in service along with a copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court. 7. The Petitioner made no grievance at that stage that the Tribunal had not considered whether the enquiry held against him was legal and proper or whether it was vitiated because the rules of natural justice had been breached. The Petitioner thus accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. His only contention appeared to be that he was entitled to reinstatement in service in view of the fact that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. The Tribunal granted him permission to submit a fresh application as his earlier application had been disposed of by the Authorities by passing a one line order "rejected as finding of the proceeding has approved the charges". 8. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted a fresh application pursuant to the liberty granted by the Tribunal on 27th February, 2013. An order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Sealdah, on 18th April, 2013 rejecting the Petitioners claim for reinstatement in service. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner preferred Original Application No. 720 of 2013 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. In this Original Application the Petitioners only prayer was for setting aside the order passed on 18th April, 2013 by the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Sealdah, and consequently for reinstatement. 9. A bare perusal of the earlier orders of the Tribunal indicates that all that the Tribunal had permitted the Petitioner to do in O.A. No. 564 of 2011 was to produce before the Respondents the judgment in the criminal case in which he was acquitted and to justify his claim that he was entitled to reinstatement in service as he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. The Petitioner, however, challenged the punishment imposed on him by attempting to reopen the entire issue regarding the validity of the departmental proceedings. The Petitioner, however, challenged the punishment imposed on him by attempting to reopen the entire issue regarding the validity of the departmental proceedings. The Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Sealdah, by his order of 18th April, 2013 has observed that under Rule 863 of the Police Regulation of Bengal, a discharge or dismissal of a Police Officer is not a bar to award a punishment pursuant to a departmental enquiry. 10. Thus, the Petitioner, for reasons best known to him, failed to challenge the departmental proceedings and the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner could not, therefore, reopen the entire issue in respect of the validity of the enquiry and the finding of the guilt by submitting a representation for reinstatement in service in view of the fact that he had been acquitted by a Criminal Court. 11. In our opinion, the Tribunal has not erred in dismissing the application. It is trite that the nature of evidence and the assessment of evidence in a criminal trial and a departmental proceeding are completely different. In a criminal trial the prosecution must prove the case against the accused to the hilt. However, in a departmental enquiry the employer must only prove the charges levelled against the employee on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The purpose of a prosecution and a departmental enquiry are entirely different. In our opinion, therefore, merely because the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case it would not necessarily lead to the inference that he was entitled to the reinstatement in service. We have not been shown any Service Rule which mandates the reinstatement of the employee if he is acquitted in a criminal trial. 12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. 13. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.