RAM LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 04-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 808 : 2023 INSC 1047
808
CASE DETAILS
RAM LAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023)
DECEMBER 4, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the dismissal of the appellant-
constable from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justifi ed; 
and what is the eff ect of the acquittal, ordered by the appellate judge in the 
criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in the departmental enquiry.
Service law – Dismissal from service pursuant to the departmental 
enquiry on allegation of commission of fraud – Justifi cation – Eff ect 
of acquittal ordered by the appellate judge in the criminal trial, on 
the order of dismissal – Allegation against the appellant-constable 
of altering his date of birth in his 8th standard marksheet to project 
himself as having attained majority at the time of recruitment to 
the post – Initiation of departmental proceeding – Dismissal from 
service – Conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s. 420 IPC by the 
trial court, however, acquittal by the appellate court – Writ petition 
seeking quashing of the dismissal order and re-instatement in service 
– Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Inference drawn about the proof of the charges by ignoring 
the relevant and material evidence being  the deposition of the prosecution 
witness, the marksheet of 8th class of the appellant enclosed in the 
chargesheet and the original marksheet which have direct bearing on the 
charge – Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority merely reiterated 
the reasoning in the enquiry report – Explanation given by the appellant 
that overwriting in the application form was only due to correction of 
an inadvertent error is accepted – As long as the original 8th standard 
809
marksheet reflected his date of birth as 21.04.1972 and there is no 
correction or manipulation in that document, the appellant cannot 
be penalised – Furthermore, reading of the entire judgment clearly 
indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the 
prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution miserably 
failed to prove the charge – Findings of the appellate judge in the 
criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant 
was not just, “not proved”, in fact the charge even stood “disproved” 
by the very prosecution evidence – Charges were not just similar 
but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all 
the same – Thus, the order of termination, the order of the appellate 
authority, the orders refusing to reconsider and review the penalty, 
being illegal and untenable, are quashed – Judgment of the High Court 
is set aside – Issuance of direction to re-instate the appellant with all 
consequential benefits including 50% of the backwages.
Judicial review – Order of the Disciplinary Authority – Power 
of writ court to review:
Held: Is very limited – Scope of enquiry is only to examine 
whether the decision-making process is legitimate – Courts are entitled 
to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have 
ignored material evidence and if so the courts can interfere – Mere 
acquittal by a criminal court would not confer on the employee a right 
to claim any benefit, including reinstatement – However, if the charges 
in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or 
similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and 
the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension – Court would 
be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that 
allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand would 
be unjust, unfair and oppressive. [Para 11-13]
Words and phrases – Expressions “benefit of doubt” and 
“honorably acquitted”, used in judgments – Effect:
Held: Said expressions are not to be understood as magic 
incantations – Court of law will not be carried away by the mere use 
of such terminology – Court in judicial review is obliged to examine 
RAM LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
810
the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression 
used. [Para 25]
Evidence Act, 1872 – Fact, when said to be ‘disproved’:
Held: A fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering 
the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or 
considers its non-existence so probable that a prude

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.