Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 129 (CAL)

Shiv Singh Meena v. Union of India

2016-02-03

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon a complaint by the father-in-law of the petitioner that the petitioner abused or mistreated his wife which led to her suicide, disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner says that the petitioner was initially suspended upon being arrested, but the order of suspension has now been revoked. 2. The undisputed position is that the petitioner’s wife died or committed suicide at a rented property not within any Railway Protection Force colony or campus. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint pertaining to the unnatural death of the petitioner’s wife and the investigation in such matter has not yet been completed. 3. The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet of July 7, 2015 by which the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that it is without jurisdiction as the employer cannot proceed against the petitioner for any perceived wrong committed by the petitioner beyond the scope of the petitioner’s usual line of duty. 4. It is too late in the day to allow a person to go absolutely scot-free in the disciplinary proceedings if there is a charge of abuse of his wife or of moral turpitude or sexual in nature even in connection with an act beyond the scope of the usual duties of the employee. It is now judicially recognised that the conduct of an employee outside his line of work, particularly matters of moral turpitude or sexual offences, may be taken into account in course of disciplinary proceedings. However, the latitude available to the employer cannot be taken to an absurd level that contrary findings may be rendered in the related criminal proceedings and in the departmental action pertaining to any act outside the workplace and not connected with the line of duty of the employee. 5. Thus, a distinction has to be made as to whether the act complained of pertains to the usual duties of the concerned employee or is incidental to his usual duties or is totally unconnected therewith. When the act complained of is directly in line of the employee’s official duties, notwithstanding the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the self-same set of facts, departmental proceedings can continue since the standards of proof in the two sets of proceedings are distinct. When the act complained of is directly in line of the employee’s official duties, notwithstanding the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the self-same set of facts, departmental proceedings can continue since the standards of proof in the two sets of proceedings are distinct. It is also permissible for the two sets of proceedings to continue simultaneously if the act complained of is incidental to the employee’s line of duty. In both cases, however, even if the disciplinary proceedings are completed and a punishment is awarded prior to the related criminal trial being completed, if the trial results in an honourable acquittal, the order of punishment has to be revisited by taking into account the order of honourable acquittal. 6. However, when the act complained of has no direct or indirect nexus with the usual functioning of the concerned employee, the fact-finding exercise in course of the disciplinary proceedings may have to yield to the plenary authority of the criminal court in the related proceedings since the facts would not pertain to the line of duty or to the workplace of the concerned employee. It is desirable in such cases for the departmental action to be arrested pending the criminal proceedings, though a conviction in the criminal proceedings may result in an appropriate punishment being awarded to the concerned employee without making a fresh assessment of the facts. That is because if a person is convicted in proceedings where the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt, on a lower test of preponderance of probabilities he would surely be found at fault. 7. When an employee is convicted of a charge which is unconnected with his line of duty and the offence does not involve moral turpitude or is not sexual in nature, to the extent that the conviction may not have the effect of vitiating the employee’s workplace or tarnishing the image of his employer, the order of conviction may have no bearing on the usual functioning of the employee. 8. In this case, however, abusing one’s wife or abetting in her suicide will not be a matter that the employer cannot take note of if the employee is convicted thereof. 9. 8. In this case, however, abusing one’s wife or abetting in her suicide will not be a matter that the employer cannot take note of if the employee is convicted thereof. 9. Since the act complained of against the petitioner does not pertain to his usual functioning as an RPF constable and since the death of the petitioner’s wife took place outside the precincts of any RPF colony or campus, the act complained of against the petitioner has to be regarded as not having any direct or indirect nexus with the petitioner’s usual line of duty. As a consequence, the employer should not embark on a fact-finding exercise and it would be more prudent to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings before reconsidering whether any punishment should be awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, WP 28512 (W) of 2015 is disposed of by staying the departmental action initiated against the petitioner by the notice and charge-sheet of July 7, 2015. The appropriate criminal court and the investigating agency should expedite the criminal matter and the investigation and it will be open to the employer to cite this order before the appropriate forum or authority. Upon the conclusion of the criminal trial, particularly if the petitioner is convicted, it will be open to the employer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law in the departmental action. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Writ petitioner is disposed of.