Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court 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 State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 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

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