LexTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus PHOOL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. PHOOL SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 02, 2022 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] Service Law – Penal Code, 1860 – s.392 – Arms Act – ss.3/25 – Respondent-delinquent employee’s dismissal from service was quashed by High Court on the ground that he was acquitted by criminal court on the same set of facts and charges on which he faced departmental proceeding, directed reinstatement in service – Correctness of – Held: A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding – A delinquent employee after his dismissal from service, nevertheless, seeks reinstatement when he is acquitted by a criminal court on the same set of charges and facts – Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service when found guilty in a departmental proceeding – In the present case, High Court erred in interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority and placing reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported as [1999] 2 SCR 257 – It is the Disciplinary Authority which is best equipped to reach a finding whether a “misconduct” has been committed – The prime concern of a Judge should be whether such a finding has been arrived after following a fair procedure, the principles of natural justice and fairness – Further, Capt. M. Paul Anthony case must be appreciated for its unique facts and it does not lay down a law of universal application – Also, in the instant case, the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court and in appeal the Appellate Court only acquitted him by giving him a benefit of doubt – Thus, the acquittal of the respondent was not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to benefit of doubt – Order of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Police Act – s. 34. Service Law – Departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding – Held: Both are different – The fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a departmental proceeding a [2022] 11 S.C.R. 140 140 A B C D E F G H 141 delinquent employee can be held guilty on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities”, in a criminal court the prosecution has to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt” – Difference between the two proceedings would lie in the nature of evidence and the degree of its scrutiny – The two forums therefore run at different levels. Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679 : [1999] 2 SCR 257 – distinguished. Union of India v. Sitaram Mishra (2019) 20 SCC 588 : [2019] 9 SCR 585; Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 314; State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh (2020) SCC OnLine SC 886 – relied on. Case Law Reference [1999] 2 SCR 257 distinguished Para 9 [2019] 9 SCR 585 relied on Para 11 [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 314 relied on Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2020 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1274 of 2014. Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants. Vikas Verma, Ms. Sapna Verma, Shafik Ahmed, V. Elanchezhiyan, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. Leave granted. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before this Court against the order dated 09.09.2020, passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench). By the impugned order the Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the present respondent, quashing his dismissal from service. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. PHOOL SINGH A B C D E F G H 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 11 S.C.R. 2. Respondent Phool Singh had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable, in the year 1987. The same year, while he was posted at the Police Station Mania, District Dholpur (Rajasthan), he allegedly committed a criminal offence, apart from an act of gross indiscipline. On the fateful day of 15.10.1987, he was wandering around the town in the evening, in company of one Lokman. Respondent was off duty but in police uniform, when he allegedly caught one Mahesh Kumar and demanded Rs.100/- from him. On his refusal, Mahesh Kumar was asked to show the papers of his motorcycle and when he failed to show these papers, Phool
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.