Recently, the Delhi High Court held that a mere acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement in service; it must be an honourable acquittal. The Division Bench comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted that expressions like 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', or 'fully exonerated' are not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code; they have been coined through judicial pronouncements. However, when an accused is acquitted after a thorough consideration of prosecution evidence, and it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused, it can be deemed an honourable acquittal, the court noted.
Brief Facts:
The Delhi government and its police officials filed a writ petition challenging a decision made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a previous case. The CAT had partially allowed an application by the respondents (police officers) and modified their punishment to forfeiture of five years of service temporarily, instead of a permanent basis. The officers were accused of negligence, leading to the escape of an undertrial prisoner in 2007. Initially, they were given a ten-year punishment, later reduced to five years by the Appellate Authority. The main question in this case was whether the CAT's decision to change the punishment was legally valid.
Contentions of the Claimant:
The respondents were accused of negligence while escorting an under-trial prisoner, resulting in the prisoner's escape. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them, and they were found guilty. The punishment of forfeiture of ten years of approved service permanently was imposed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents challenged the punishment in the Tribunal, claiming that they had been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same incident. They argued that as per Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, an acquittal in a criminal court should lead to the revocation of the punishment.
Observations by the Court:
The court analyzed the criminal court's judgment and found that the prosecution had failed to produce any incriminating evidence to prove the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of "honourable acquittal" in Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. S. Samuthiram, where it was stated that an accused is honourably acquitted when acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and when the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges.
The court noted that the Tribunal had not considered the nature of the criminal court's finding but concluded that, considering the 15-year duration of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal case, the punishment modification was justified. It upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the punishment imposed on the respondents did not need further interference.
The decision of the Court:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision to modify the punishment. As a result, the interim order passed earlier, which stayed the impugned order, was vacated. No costs were awarded in the case.
Case Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ORS. Vs Nihal Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case No.: W.P. (C) -186 of 2021
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advs. for GNCTD
Advocates of the Respondent: Dr. Manish Aggarwal and Ms. Namrata Sharma, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
