Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC

Allahabad High Court Division Bench in Const. No. 118 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors. overturned the dismissal of a constable, reinstating him with partial back wages. The Court held that the petitioner, who had been dismissed following a departmental inquiry, was honorably acquitted in a criminal case based on the same allegations. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the limited scope of departmental proceedings when criminal charges fail in court.

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, a constable in the U.P. Civil Police, was assigned special duty in September 2008. During this period, an incident at his residence involving a landlord’s altercation led to a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Allegations of an illicit relationship between Pandey and a domestic worker were made, prompting his arrest and suspension.

Though he was reinstated briefly in November 2008, a departmental inquiry eventually found him guilty of misconduct, citing his alleged absence from duty and the FIR incident. Consequently, Pandey was dismissed from service on 10th May 2009. His appeals and revisions against the dismissal were denied, and a subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 19th October 2023, leading to the current special appeal.

The case presented two major legal questions:

Whether the dismissal following the departmental inquiry was justified.

What effect the honorable acquittal in criminal proceedings had on the departmental decision.

The Court observed that while departmental inquiries can run concurrently with criminal trials, the charges against Pandey in both forums were identical, and the same witnesses were examined. The trial court had honorably acquitted Pandey, noting the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The Allahabad High Court further ruled that the sole remaining charge of two days' unauthorized absence did not warrant the harsh punishment of dismissal. Referring to Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178, the Court emphasized that unauthorized absence must be proven to be willful to constitute misconduct, which was not established in this case.

The Division Bench held that the evidence presented in the departmental inquiry lacked credibility, especially since the testimony of the key witness, Sub-Inspector Ram Nageena Singh, differed significantly between the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial. The Court stated:

"The punishment imposed on the petitioner for identical charges that led to his honorable acquittal in the criminal trial is disproportionate and unjustified."

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had been honorably acquitted, which should have been a substantial consideration in the departmental inquiry, especially given the identical nature of the allegations in both proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court set aside the disciplinary authority’s dismissal order, along with the decisions of the appellate and revisional authorities, reinstating Pandey into service with 25% back wages. While not granting full back wages due to lack of clarity on his employment status during the dismissal period, the Court made it clear that the punishment imposed was excessive and unwarranted given the circumstances.

Date of Decision: 26th September 2024

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors.