Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Departmental Proceedings Cannot Bypass Criminal Acquittal: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes CRPF Constable’s Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the dismissal of Prem Pal Singh, a constable driver in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The court found that the departmental proceedings against Singh, conducted without the mandatory sanction from the Inspector General, were unsustainable. The petitioner, previously acquitted in criminal proceedings on similar charges, will be reinstated with 50% back wages.

Facts of the Case: Prem Pal Singh, a CRPF constable driver, was dismissed from service on April 2, 2012, following allegations of misappropriating and selling fuel. Singh was acquitted by the criminal court on November 21, 2011, due to a lack of evidence. Despite his acquittal, the CRPF initiated departmental proceedings on identical charges without the required sanction from the Inspector General, leading to Singh’s dismissal.

Rule 27(2)(ccc) of CRPF Rules, 1955: The central issue was the application of Rule 27(2)(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which mandates prior sanction from the Inspector General for departmental proceedings on similar charges post-acquittal in criminal cases. The court observed that the respondents failed to adhere to this rule, rendering the dismissal order unsustainable.

Credibility of Evidence in Departmental Proceedings: The court scrutinized the evidence presented in the departmental inquiry. Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that the Inquiry Officer’s findings were based solely on the presence of two Jerry Cans of fuel in the vehicle, driven by Singh, without any substantive evidence of misappropriation or intent to sell. “Merely because two Jerry cans of fuel were found inside the bus does not mean the petitioner indulged in sale of fuel,” the court stated.

Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Departmental Proceedings: Justice Dhar emphasized that the allegations in both the criminal and departmental proceedings were identical. The criminal court had already examined the evidence and found it insufficient to proceed against Singh. The High Court highlighted that the departmental proceedings failed to consider this critical aspect, leading to a flawed inquiry process.

The judgment drew on precedents, including Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, to underscore that acquittal in criminal proceedings significantly impacts similar departmental inquiries. The court reiterated that the findings of a disciplinary inquiry should not contradict the conclusions of a criminal court when both proceedings are based on identical charges and evidence.

Justice Dhar remarked, “The petitioner may not have been tried by the criminal court, but he has certainly been discharged and exonerated of criminal charges so his case stands at a higher pedestal than acquittal, particularly when the petitioner has been discharged on merits and not on technicalities.”

The High Court’s judgment sets a precedent for the alignment of departmental proceedings with the outcomes of criminal cases. By reinstating Prem Pal Singh with 50% back wages, the court reinforced the necessity for procedural compliance and fair treatment in disciplinary actions. This decision is likely to influence future cases, ensuring that departmental inquiries respect the findings of criminal courts and adhere to statutory requirements.

Date of Decision: 24th May 2024

Prem Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

Similar News