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" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Delhi High Court Rules “Acquittal in Criminal Case Not Grounds for Automatic Reinstatement in Departmental Enquiry”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the validity of suspension and dismissal orders against two Constables of the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F) who had challenged their dismissal from service. The judgment, pronounced on August 1, 2023, emphasized that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically warrant reinstatement in the context of departmental proceedings.

The two petitioners, Ram Niwas and Raj Singh, were arrested in September 1998 on charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After facing trial, they were acquitted by the Special Judge in May 2010. Seeking reinstatement, the petitioners contended that their acquittal in the criminal case should nullify the charges against them in the departmental enquiry.

However, the Hon’ble High Court, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed the petitions, stating that the punishment of dismissal was not based on the outcome of the criminal case but on the independent findings in the departmental proceedings. The court noted that the standard of proof in domestic enquiry differs from that in a criminal trial.

In the judgment, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized, “Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically warrant reinstatement in the disciplinary proceedings. The two proceedings have different objectives, and the standard of proof in each is distinct.”

The court further observed that the petitioners failed to establish specific illegalities in the departmental enquiry. It emphasized that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings and cannot re-evaluate evidence like a court of first appeal.

Citing precedent cases, the court clarified that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily result in reinstatement in service. It highlighted that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings by an employer is to inquire into the allegation of misconduct, and the charge in such proceedings is established based on preponderance of probabilities.

The ruling sets a precedent on the relevance of acquittal in a criminal case concerning departmental enquiries. It emphasizes the need for distinct standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials, upholding the principle of fairness and natural justice.

D.D: 01st August, 2023

RAM NIWAS  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Latest Legal News