Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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