High Court Upholds Constable’s Dismissal for Bigamy: Acquittal in Criminal Case Irrelevant

Emphasizes preponderance of probabilities in departmental proceedings over proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a police constable on charges of bigamy, despite the petitioner’s acquittal in a related criminal case. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, underscores the difference between the standards of proof required in criminal trials and departmental proceedings, emphasizing the role of preponderance of probabilities in the latter.

The petitioner, a constable stationed at Churchu Police Station in Hazaribagh, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry that found him guilty of maintaining a live-in relationship with a woman other than his wife. A complaint filed by the woman in 2017 alleged that the petitioner, already married with two children, cohabited with her, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent mistreatment. This prompted the registration of an FIR under various sections of the IPC, including charges of rape and causing miscarriage. Despite being acquitted in the criminal trial, the petitioner faced departmental action under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, resulting in his dismissal in February 2021.

The court emphasized the distinct nature of criminal and departmental proceedings. “Acquittal in a criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both cases are totally different,” the court noted, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Samar Bahadur Singh v. State of UP.

The court reiterated that while criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt, departmental proceedings are based on the preponderance of probabilities. “The department has been able to prove the case on the standard of preponderance of probabilities,” Justice Pathak observed, affirming the sufficiency of evidence supporting the petitioner’s violation of departmental rules.

The judgment highlighted the importance of personal conduct for members of the police force. “The admission of the petitioner that he was in a live-in relationship with a woman other than his wife becomes a sufficient reason for termination,” the court stated, referencing the rules governing police personnel’s conduct.

The court found that the dismissal was procedurally sound, with the petitioner given ample opportunity to present his case during the departmental enquiry and subsequent appeals. “The petitioner was given ample opportunity before the enquiry officer as well as the appellate authority and the revisional authority,” the judgment noted.

Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in such cases, the court cited the Supreme Court’s guidance in Union of India & Ors. V. P. Gunasekaran, which restricts reappreciation of evidence by the High Court in disciplinary matters. “The High Court shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence… or interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law,” the court held.

Justice Pathak remarked, “The petitioner being a member of the police force was not expected to violate the rules… It is unbecoming of a police personnel to be in a live-in relationship with another lady other than his wife, which amounts to a violation of the service conditions.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on maintaining high standards of personal conduct within the police force and the distinct thresholds of proof applicable in departmental versus criminal proceedings. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s limited role in interfering with disciplinary actions when procedural compliance is ensured and reinforces the legal framework governing police personnel conduct.

Date of Decision: 19^th June 2024

Xxx vs The State