Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh And Another vs Shriomani Gurudwara Prabhandhak ... on 14 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
CWP-7198-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
112 CWP-7198-2024
Reserved on : April 22, 2024
Pronounced on : May 14, 2024
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
...... Petitioners
Versus
SHRIOMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND
ANOTHER
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Jagdish Singh Mahal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-2 & P-3) and office
order dated 10.07.2021 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioners have been
awarded punishment, and for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2015 (Annexure
P-1), whereby the petitioners have been placed under suspension, and seeking a
writ of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners
with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as have
been pleaded in the writ petition, are that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have joined
as 'Sewadar' and 'S/Granthi' on 15.10.1991 and 04.08.2008, respectively, at
'Takhat Shri Keshgarh Sahib, Shri Anandpur Sahib and were posted at 'Gurdwara
Sahib Baba Gurditta Ji', Kiratpur Sahib, District Ropar (for short 'the
Gurudwara'). The affairs of the Gurdwara are supervised and managed by
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
'Gurudwara Sahib Takht Shri Keshgarh Sahib', Ropar under the overall control of
'Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, which deals qua the management
of all the Sikh Gurdwaras under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
3. On the intervening night of 18.04.2015 and 19.04.2015, at about
12:30 PM, one 'Bhai Himmat Singh', who was posted as 'Akhand Pathi' in the
Gurdwara, had vomited by the side of the 'beer' of Shri Guru Granthi Sahib and
though the petitioners were not at any fault but they have been placed under
suspension vide impugned order dated 29.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) and further
charge-sheeted vide impugned orders dated dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-2 & P-
3) and after the culmination of enquiry proceedings they were found guilty of
disobedience of 'Gur Mariada' and resultantly, Petitioner No.1 - Harbhajan Singh
was imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- and whereas Petitioner No.2 - Jaimal Singh
was found guilty for not disclosing the occurrence and destroying the proofs as
well as disobedience of 'Gur Mariada' and was imposed penalty of demotion in
rank with penalty of Rs.50,000/- and were reinstated into service in different
Gurudwaras. Simultaneously, during the continuation of departmental
proceedings, an FIR No.64 dated 23.07.2015, under Sections 295-A, 120-B and
201 IPC, was also got registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Kiratpur
Sahib and vide Judgement dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shri Anandpur Sahib, both the petitioners were
acquitted from the charges, since the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred writ
petition i.e. CWP No.3418 of 2024 challenging the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2015
as well as the order of suspension dated 10.07.2021, however, the same was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of
action with better particulars. Hence, this petition.
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
4. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is
that since both the petitioners have already been acquitted vide Judgement dated
19.09.2022 passed by the Criminal Court, therefore, the respondents' action qua
placing the petitioners under suspension and imposition of penalty of reduction of
rank in service with penalities is illegal, therefore, the impugned orders i.e.
charge-sheet dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-2 & P-3) and office order dated
10.07.2021 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioners have been awarded
punishment, and the order dated 29.04.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the
petitioners have been placed under suspension be set aside and the petitioners be
given same rank, with all consequential benefits. In support of this contention,
he has placed reliance upon the Judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in cases titled as 'The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr.
Verus P. Kata Rao' 2008 (3) SCT 153 and 'Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.' 1999(2) SCT 660, respectively.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
record.
6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is relevant to mention here
that a perusal of the impugned office order dated 10.07.2021 would show that the
petitioners have already been reinstated by the respondents and posted in different
Gurudwaras. Therefore, the precise grievance of the petitioners is that they be
given same rank on which they were working prior to their suspension and
consequential benefits in their favour be granted accordingly by setting aside the
punishment order. The petition is fraught with certain discrepancies as no such
pleadings to this effect has been made in the entire petition.
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
7. The question, which arises for the determination of this Court in the
present writ petition is whether acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court has
any impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded by the
respondents. The said question has been answered in catena of Judgements
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that the
departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can be conducted
simultaneously and mere acquittal of an employee by a Criminal Court
subsequently has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
Department.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Deputy Inspector General of Police
and another versus S. Samuthiram' 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 329 held that
mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department and acquittal in the criminal
case cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgement reads as
under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 16. We may indicate that before the order of acquittal was passed
by the Criminal Court on 20.11.2000, the Departmental Enquiry was
completed and the respondent was dismissed from service on
4.1.2000. The question is when the departmental enquiry has been
concluded resulting in the dismissal of the delinquent from service,
the subsequent finding recorded by the Criminal Court acquitting the
respondent delinquent, will have any effect on the departmental
proceedings. The propositions which the respondent wanted to
canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony
case (supra) read as follows:-
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case
can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being
conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii)If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are
based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in
the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a
grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and
fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii)Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave
and whether complicated questions of fact and law are
involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence,
the nature of the case launched against the employee on the
basis of evidence and material collected against him during
investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be
considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings
but due regard has to be given to the fact that the
departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being
unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they
were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case,
can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at
an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the
administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
17. This Court, in Southern Railway Officers' Association v.
Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, held that acquittal in a criminal
case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court
reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the
delinquent officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge.
20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a
member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key
witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our
view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the
Prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the possibility of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case
cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not
examined Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi
Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the
respondent from the scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2,
husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their
presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal
court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (husband -
complainant) is found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Further, the Doctor
P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the
respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused
to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we
are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by
the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2
turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision
in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably
acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee
to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the
standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal
court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is
entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the
guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish
the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be
innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to
establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary
proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or
the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other
witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did
not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the
ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court,
therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are
not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was
honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is
not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service
Rules do not provide so.
24. We have also come across cases where the service rules
provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be
kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be
reinstated. In such cases, the re-instatement is automatic. There may
be cases where the service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry,
if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be
reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be
reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the
service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as
a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu
Service Rules.
25. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the
view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the
respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
9. Reliance is also placed upon the Judgement rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Phool Singh, 2022(4) SCT
138, wherein Apex Court held that :-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
"8. There should be no ambiguity in law on this subject. A
departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding. The
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
fundamental difference between the two is that whereas in a
departmental proceeding a delinquent employee can be held guilty
on the basis of "preponderance of probabilities", in a criminal court
the prosecution has to prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt". In
short, the difference between the two proceedings would lie in the
nature of evidence and the degree of its scrutiny. The two forums
therefore run at different levels. For this reason, this Court has
consistently held that merely because a person has been acquitted in
a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. In view of the Judgements referred above, it is held that acquittal in a
criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering in the order of
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, since it has no impact on the
disciplinary proceedings and the sole reason in support of this phenomena is that
the standard of proof required for proving charge in a disciplinary inquiry and
criminal case is different as in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt; whereas in a
disciplinary inquiry, the inquiry officer and the punishing authority is entitled to
draw an inference and conclude the inquiry on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities whereas in the present case, the petitioners have been acquitted from
the charges, since the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt beyond the
shadow of reasonable doubt and its not a honourable acquittal by the criminal
court and even if it is so, still the order of punishment already passed on
10.07.2021 cannot be scruitinized under the scope of judicial review of this Court.
11. There is no quarrel about the law laid down in the Judgements of
'The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad' and 'Capt. M. Paul
Anthony' cases (Supra) , as referred by learned counsel for the petitioners,
however, they are of no assistance to the petitioners.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067734
12. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court does not find it
appropriate to interfere in the matter by invoking jurisdiction under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India.
13. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to
costs.
May 14, 2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
mkkoundal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
