Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders Limitation Period Under Section 18-A of Rent Act Mandatory, Delay Not Condonable – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NRI Landlord's Eviction Against Tenant Custom Department Cannot Revive Time-Barred Show Cause Notices After Seven Years Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Notices to JBS Exports Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Registered Sale Deed Alone Does Not Dismantle Prior Security Interest: Gauhati High Court Rejects Buyer’s Writ Against SARFAESI Action, Cites Expanded Statutory Definition Old OBC Certificates Won’t Work — Supreme Court Says Cut-Off Date Is Final in Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams

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.

Similar News