Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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