2006 (5) TMI 509 - SC - Indian Laws

Letters Patent Appeal - Public servant Removal from Services - erroneous - movable and immovable property - illegally accumulated excess income by way of gratification - failed to prove the charges - departmental proceedings and the criminal case - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant being a public servant used to submit his yearly property return relating to his movable and immovable property and the appellant has also submitted his return in the year 1975 showing his entire movable and immovable assets. No query whatsoever was ever raised about the movable and immovable assets of the appellant. In fact, the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of and/or about the alleged charges levelled against the appellant.. Likewise, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the alleged charges punishable under the provisions of P.C. Act on the same set of facts and evidence. It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts and evidence. The appellant has been honourably acquitted by the competent Court on the same set of facts, evidence and witness and, therefore, the dismissal order based on same set of facts and evidence on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case 1999 (3) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. In the instant case, the appellant joined the respondent in the year 1953. He was suspended from service on 8.2.1979 and got subsistence allowance of ₹ 700/- p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary. On 15.10.1982 dismissal order was passed. The appellant has put in 26 years of service with the respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant would now superannuate in February, 1986. On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the Department passed an order of dismissal on 21.10.1982 whereas the Criminal Court acquitted him on 30.1.2002. However, as the Criminal Court acquitted the appellant on 30.1.2002 and until such acquittal, there was no reason or ground to hold the dismissal to be erroneous, any relief monetarily can be only w.e.f. 30.1.2002. But by then, the appellant had retired, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of dismissal without back wages. The appellant would be entitled to pension. Thus, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil appln. as affirmed by the Division Bench and allow this appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of dismissal from service in the absence of evidence.
2. Impact of acquittal in criminal proceedings on departmental disciplinary actions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Dismissal from Service in the Absence of Evidence:

The appellant joined service in 1953 and was dismissed in 1982 following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Anti-Corruption Bureau's investigation and subsequent charge sheet alleged illegal accumulation of wealth through bribery and corruption. Despite the appellant's explanations, the departmental inquiry concluded with a dismissal order, which was upheld by both the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found that there was no substantial proof against the appellant. The appellant had regularly submitted his property returns, and no queries were raised about his assets until the investigation. The departmental inquiry relied heavily on the statements of the appellant's relatives, which were dismissed as interested witnesses without concrete documentary evidence. The Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the departmental inquiry were based on no evidence, making the dismissal order legally unsustainable.

2. Impact of Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on Departmental Disciplinary Actions:

The criminal proceedings against the appellant, based on the same set of facts and evidence as the departmental inquiry, resulted in his acquittal by the Special Judge. The Special Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and accepted the appellant's explanations regarding the sources of his assets. The Supreme Court noted that the acquittal was not based on a technicality or benefit of doubt but was a complete exoneration.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when the same set of facts and evidence is used in both criminal and departmental proceedings, an honorable acquittal in the criminal case should impact the departmental action. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India, which established that an acquittal on merits in a criminal case should lead to the setting aside of disciplinary actions based on the same facts.

The Court also distinguished between the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings but held that in cases where the evidence is identical, an acquittal in criminal proceedings should lead to a similar outcome in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's acquittal by the Special Judge, which had reached finality, should have been considered by the High Court.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the dismissal order, recognizing the appellant's honorable acquittal in the criminal case and the lack of evidence in the departmental inquiry. The appellant was entitled to pension but not to back wages, as the acquittal occurred after his retirement. The appeal was allowed without costs.