Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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