Date:16/05/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/05/16/stories/2006051617640900.htm

National

No departmental action after court acquittal: Bench

J. Venkatesan

Dismissal erroneous, High Court order quashed

Charges in departmental, criminal proceedings grounded on same facts Acquittal by special court will amount to exoneration

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has held that if an employee is acquitted in criminal proceedings, no departmental action can be taken against him for the same charges. A Bench, comprising Justices A.R. Lakshmanan and R.V. Raveendran, set aside the dismissal of an employee in departmental disciplinary proceedings after a special court absolved him of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

When the charges levelled against the appellant in the departmental and criminal proceedings were grounded on the same facts and evidence, acquittal by the special court on merits would amount to clear exoneration from liability under disciplinary jurisdiction, the Bench said. Writing the judgment, Justice Lakshmanan said: "The nature of the case launched on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet [and], factors mentioned are one and the same."

The Bench pointed out that judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. "Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand... When there was an honourable acquittal [in a criminal court] during the pendency of the [departmental] proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of."

The Gujarat Government filed a criminal case against G.M. Tank, who joined as an Overseer, alleging that he had amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The case ended in acquittal but he was dismissed. Both a single judge and a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upheld the dismissal.Allowing the appeal by Mr. Tank, the Bench held his dismissal erroneous and quashed the High Court order. As he retired during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Tank would be entitled to pension.