STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus SANKAR GHOSH

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 28-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 516 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
v. 
SANKAR GHOSH 
(Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Effect of acquittal in criminal case on dismissal order 
after departmental inquiry - Held: There is no rule of automatic 
reinstatement on acquittal by a criminal court even though the 
charges levelled against the delinquent before the Enquiry 
Officer as well as the criminal court are the same - Further, 
0 Regulation 4 of 1968 Regulations indicates that even if there 
is identity of charges /eve/led against the accused before the 
criminal court as well as before the Enquiry Officer, an order 
of discharge or acquittal of a police officer by a Criminal Court 
shall not be a bar to award of punishment in departmental 
E proceedings - In the instant case, charges leveled against the 
respondent in departmental proceedings were proved beyond 
any shadow of doubt - Besides, there is evidence that stolen 
money was recovered from the possession of the respondent 
- A motorcycle and a private car used in commission of the 
offence were also recovered from his home - Trial court 
F acquitted the respondent merely because the witness could 
not identify him during Tl parade - Therefore, it cannot be said 
that respondent was honourably acquitted - Order of 
disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent from service, 
upheld - Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968 - Regulation 
G 4. 
The respondent, a Sapoy in Kolkata Armed Police, on 
deputation in Traffic Department of Kolkata Police, was 
prosecuted for committing offices punishable u/ss 392, 
H 
516 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SANKAR 
517 
GHOSH 
395 and 412 !PC and ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for A 
his complicity in the commission of a dacoity using a 
motor cycle. A departmental inquiry was also initiated 
against him with regard to the said offences. The Enquiry 
Officer found him guilty of the charges and, ultimately, he 
was dismissed from service. However, in the criminal 
B 
case, he was acquitted by the Court of Session. On such 
acquittal the appellant filed an O.A. before the West 
Bengal Administrative Tribunal which directed the 
disciplinary authority to reinstate him in view of the 
acquittal order passed by the Court of Session. The High c 
Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the Court was: whether the respondent, who was 
dismissed from service following disciplinary 
proceedings, was entitled to be reinstated on acquittal by 
D 
the criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in 
the departmental as well as criminal proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. There is no rule of automatic reinstatement 
on acquittal by a criminal court even though the charges 
levelled against the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer 
E 
as well as the criminal court are the same. On the other 
hand, Regulation 4 of Chapter 19 of the Police 
F 
Regulations of Calcutta, 1968, which is applicable to the 
case in hand, specifically provides that acquittal or 
discharge in a criminal proceeding shall not be a bar to 
award punishment in a departmental proceeding in 
respect of the same cause or matter. It indicates that even 
if there is identity of charges levelled against the G 
respondent before the criminal court as well as before the 
Enquiry Officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a 
police officer by a criminal court shall not be a bar to the 
award of the departmental punishment. [para 16-18] [527-
C-D, G-H; 528-A, C-D] 
H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. In the instant case, the respondent was a 
member of the disciplined force. He was dismissed from 
service due to his involvement in the criminal case, 
wherein he was charged with the offences u/s 395/412 
IPC and s.25/27 of the Arms Act. It is the stand of the 
B department that being a member of the disciplined force, 
his involvement in such a heinous crime tarnished the 
image/prestige of the Police Force in the estimation of the 
members of public in general. Before the Enquiry Officer 
from the side of the department, four witnesses were 
c examined. The Enquiry Officer believed the evidence of 
PW3 and concluded that the charges levelled against the 
respondent were proved beyond any shadow of doubt, 
except the charge that the respondent stayed out without 
permission. [para 10-11] [523-G-H; 524-A

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