SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD versus INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 01-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
  SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD
   v.
INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
        SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7130 of 2009)
AUGUST 01, 2019
[N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Dismissal – Propriety of  – Departmental Inquiry under CISF
Rules – On the charge of gross misconduct in discharge of duties –
Alleged that he had handed over an unlicensed fire-arm with
ammunitions to a person, which had facilitated another person in
committing an offence u/ss. 302/392 IPC and s. 27 of Arms Act  – In
the meantime criminal case was also instituted against the delinquent
u/s. 25(1) of Arms Act (wherein the delinquent was acquitted as the
material witnesses turned hostile) – Inquiry Officer found him guilty
– Disciplinary authority upheld the finding and inflicted penalty of
dismissal from service – Order of dismissal further approved by
Appellate as well as Revisional Authority – Writ Petition dismissed
by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Acquittal in
criminal proceedings would not absolve the delinquent from the
liability under disciplinary proceedings  – In the present case charge
in criminal case and departmental enquiry were different having
no nexus/co-relationship and were based on different sets of facts
– There was also no error committed in the procedure prescribed
under the scheme of CISF Rules – There is no violation of principles
of natural justice – Therefore, it was not open for the High Court to
interfere with disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of
review u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution – Central Industrial
Security Force Rules, 1969  – r. 34.
Departmental proceedings and Criminal Judicial proceedings
– Scope of and effect of acquittal by criminal court on departmental
proceedings – Discussed.
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1098
1098
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Two proceedings criminal and departmental are
entirely different.  They operate in different fields and have
different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to
inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of
enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally
and to impose penalty in accordance with the service Rules.  The
degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is
different from the degree of proof necessary to record the
commission of delinquency.  Even the rule relating to appreciation
of evidence in the two proceedings is  not similar.  In criminal
law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law
whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on
the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of
‘preponderance of probability’.  Acquittal by the Court of
competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto
absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the authority.   This is what has been considered
by the High Court in the impugned judgment in detail and needs
no interference by this Court. [Para 19] [1107-G; 1108-A-C]
1.2   In the instant case the charge in the criminal case and
departmental enquiry were different having no nexus/co-
relationship and were based on different sets of facts and evidence
which has been independently enquired in the disciplinary
proceedings and in a criminal trial.  Acquittal in the criminal
proceedings would not absolve the appellant from the liability
under the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in which
he had been held guilty and in sequel thereto punished with the
penalty of dismissal from service.  That apart, much before the
judgment of the criminal case could be pronounced, the
departmental enquiry was concluded and after the Inquiry Officer
had held him guilty, he was punished with the penalty of dismissal
from service.[Paras 21, 22] [1109-D, F-G]
Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya  and  Others (1997) 2 SCC
      SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD v. INSPECTOR GENERAL
               CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
699 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 941 ;  Ajit   Kumar  Nag v.
General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Haldia and Others (2005) 7 SCC 764 : [2005] 3 Suppl.
SCR 314 – relied on.
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat

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