Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court

Acquittal in Criminal Case Does Not Automatically Affect Departmental Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically impact the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. This is due to the differing standards of proof required in criminal and departmental proceedings.

The petitioners, Harbhajan Singh and another, employed as 'Sewadar' and 'S/Granthi' respectively, were implicated in a case involving an incident at a Gurdwara where another employee vomited near the holy book. Despite not being directly responsible, they were suspended and later penalized by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). Subsequently, an FIR was filed against them, but they were acquitted by the criminal court. Post-acquittal, they sought the quashing of the departmental charge-sheet and penalties, and requested reinstatement with all benefits.

Whether acquittal by a criminal court affects ongoing or concluded departmental proceedings.

Whether the penalties imposed by the SGPC should be set aside following the criminal acquittal.

Standard of Proof: The court emphasized the differing standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings. "The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, it is based on the preponderance of probabilities" (Para 10).

Independent Proceedings: The court reiterated that departmental and criminal proceedings are independent. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it noted, "Acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for interfering with the disciplinary authority's punishment" (Para 9).

Supreme Court Judgments: The court referred to the judgments in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram and State of Rajasthan v. Phool Singh to underscore that departmental proceedings can continue independently of criminal trial outcomes (Paras 8-9).

Nature of Acquittal: It was noted that the acquittal of the petitioners was not honorable but due to the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This distinction is crucial in determining the impact on departmental actions (Para 10).

Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the disciplinary proceedings and the penalties imposed were valid despite the criminal acquittal. The court found no grounds to interfere under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, affirming that the penalties were supported by substantial evidence and within the legal framework (Paras 12-13).

Date of Decision: May 14, 2024

Harbhajan Singh and another v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and another

Latest Legal News