The Calcutta High Court expounded that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in Courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was appointed to the post of post of labourer (Group-D) in the Indian Red Cross Society and was granted temporary status.
A criminal case under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code was registered and in connection with the same, the Petitioner was arrested on and thereafter released on bail.
Respondent No. 2 placed the Petitioner under deemed suspension. After inquiry, order was passed for removal from service.
In the criminal case, the Petitioner was not found guilty. The Petitioner submitted request for review of order in respect of removal from service, but the request was not considered.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal as regards dissimilarity of the charges in the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal proceeding was not sustainable in law in as much as the charges were identical and similar, the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were one and the same in both the proceedings.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that since the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 409 of IPC in the criminal trial, his culpability pertaining to the other delinquencies need not be ignored.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the the findings as regards the allegations in the disciplinary proceeding stood contradicted by the findings of the Court in the criminal trial and only thereafter the petitioner could have filed the application for review of the order of removal. As such, the period spend from the date of removal till the date of filing of the review application after disposal of the criminal trial could not be attributed to the petitioner nor could it be urged that the petitioner was responsible for such delay.
The Bench opined that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in Courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules.
The decision of the Court:
The Bench directed respondents to disburse 50% of the back wages together with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ was disposed.
Case Title: Subal Makhal v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.
Case No.: WPCT 225 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
Advocate for Respondent: Adv.Mr. Sudip Krishna Datta
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
