Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Doesn't Automatically Lead to Acquittal or Discharge in Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 3 Oct. 2023 , the Supreme Court of India has issued a groundbreaking judgment that underscores a crucial principle in employment disputes. The verdict emphasizes that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal or discharge in departmental proceedings, highlighting the distinct nature and objectives of both legal processes.

The ruling stemmed from an employment dispute brought before the Supreme Court. The case involved the interpretation of clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002, which raised questions about whether it bars departmental proceedings when criminal proceedings for similar offenses are pending against an employee.

The bench of Hon'ble Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol meticulously examined the legal aspects of the case. They clarified that acquittal in criminal proceedings should not be seen as conclusive evidence of innocence in departmental matters. The judgment underscores that the two proceedings—criminal and departmental—are entirely different in nature, operate in different fields, and serve different objectives.

The Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed that departmental proceedings can continue even if an individual has been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same allegations. The court stressed that the standard of proof, mode of inquiry, and rules governing these two types of proceedings are significantly distinct and separate.

The judgment also highlighted that the completion of trial in criminal cases should occur within a reasonable timeframe. It should not be used as a tactic to indefinitely stall departmental proceedings. Additionally, the court mentioned that departmental proceedings should not be unduly and unjustly delayed.

This landmark judgment has far-reaching implications for employment disputes in India, providing clarity on the relationship between criminal and departmental proceedings. It emphasizes that each case must be considered individually, taking into account various factors, and that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically shield an employee from disciplinary actions in their workplace.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2023 

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.   vs P. ZADENGA     

Latest Legal News