The single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Biswas Vs Union of India & Ors held that merely because an accused has been acquitted, the power of the concerned authority to continue with the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its discretion in any way fettered.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was working as an Assistant with the life insurance corporation limited and a case was registered against the Petitioner under sections 420/120B/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for forging the documents with the motive to obtain visas for himself and his family members.
Thereafter respondent No. 4 served a notice of suspension to the petitioner and sent a letter in which the petitioner endured punishment by having his or her basic pay reduced by three stages in accordance with Regulation 39(1)(d) of the LICI (Staff) Regulations 1960. Furthermore, the Petitioner informed Respondent No. 2 regarding the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, his period of suspension should be treated as a period of duty, and consequential benefits be restored. The Petitioner also asked for the release of basic increments.
In response, the respondent authorities sent a letter to the petitioner informing him that because the order of acquittal had been made solely on technical grounds, the petitioner's case was governed by Regulation 38(b) of the LICI (Staff) Regulations 1960. As a result, Respondent No.3 asked Respondent No. 5 about the status of the refund of the back wages that had been paid during the period of suspension. The communication between the Petitioner and the Respondent is challenged before this court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that since the order of acquittal has been passed by the criminal court, he is entitled to back pay for the time that his pay was suspended as well as the release of any basic raises that were withheld as punishment. It was furthermore contended that in order to make observations about the nature of the acquittal, the Disciplinary Authority could not have deviated from the Magistrate's order.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that since the Investigating Officer was both the complainant and the only witness, the Criminal Court's order, cannot be claimed to have been based on merits because it was made without any supporting evidence being presented to the court by the Investigating Officer.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgments titled Union of India v. Methu Meda and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that a criminal proceeding differs from a departmental disciplinary proceeding in terms of its character and scope. Acquittal orders do not, therefore, automatically end the departmental proceedings. The competent authority's right to carry on with the departmental inquiry is not diminished just because an accused person was found not guilty, and its discretion is not in any way constrained.
It was furthermore observed that even while the order of acquittal may be taken into consideration, it won't have enough of an impact to completely overshadow the allegations in the disciplinary hearing. In both circumstances, the burden of proof is different, and the processes are conducted with distinct goals in mind.
It was noted that the sole witness in the criminal case was the investigating officer. The Court had not been presented with any significant evidence. Despite being taken, the documents weren't presented. The Magistrate was thus compelled to issue an order of acquittal. In these conditions, the acquittal cannot be referred to as an honourable acquittal.
It was also noted that the order of the disciplinary authority was not challenged. Therefore, the application of Rule 38(b) of the LICI (staff) Regulation Act 1960 is permissible.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the Petitioner cannot claim back wages for the period of suspension and the basic pay withheld as a penalty.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Pradip Kumar Biswas Vs Union of India & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Citation: WPO 1785 of 2005
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Mahadeb Sarkar, Advocate Mr. Bikash Chowdhury, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. D. K. Kundu, Advocate Mr. A. Basu, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
