Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

High Court of Delhi Modifies Disciplinary Punishment Based on "Honorable Acquittal" in Criminal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on July 24, 2023, the High Court of Delhi modified the disciplinary punishment imposed on police constables and head constables of the Delhi Police. The Court based its decision on the "honorable acquittal" of the accused in a criminal case, wherein the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case revolved around an incident in which an undertrial prisoner escaped from police custody during transit to a court hearing in 2007. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the police officers, resulting in the imposition of a punishment of forfeiture of ten years of approved service by the Disciplinary Authority.

Subsequently, the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment to five years of forfeiture on a permanent basis. The respondents then challenged this punishment in original applications (OAs) in 2010, but the Tribunal dismissed their OAs in 2011.

The turning point in the case came when the respondents were acquitted by the criminal court in 2012 due to the prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence to prove the charges against them. Relying on the Supreme Court's definition of "honorable acquittal," the High Court recognized the respondents' acquittal as honorable, given the prosecution's inability to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Considering the passage of time since the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and various rounds of litigation, the Court found that modifying the punishment to forfeiture of five years of approved service on a temporary basis was just and proportionate.

In its judgment, the High Court emphasized the significance of "honorable acquittal" and the authority of the Tribunal to modify punishments based on such acquittals. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness, making the modification of punishment justified.

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order and vacated the interim order that had stayed the impugned order. The Court made no order regarding costs.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

GOVT OF NCT OF DLEHI & ORS vs NIHAL SINGH & ORS.

Latest Legal News