9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether departmental proceedings can continue after an acquittal by the criminal court based on the same set of facts. - Whether the acquittal by the criminal court was on technical grounds or merits. - Whether the charge memo should be allowed to proceed to a departmental inquiry considering the delay and prejudice caused. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around whether departmental proceedings can be pursued after an individual has been acquitted by the criminal court based on the same set of facts. The Tribunal initially quashed the charge memo against the first respondent, citing that continuing the departmental proceedings would be futile after the criminal court's acquittal. The State argued that the acquittal does not bar the departmental inquiry, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. However, the first respondent cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that an acquittal on merits precludes the need for further departmental proceedings. 2. The court delved into the distinction between acquittal on technical grounds and acquittal on merits. It noted that the criminal court's acquittal based on giving the benefit of doubt to the accused does not equate to a technical acquittal. The court emphasized that the same set of facts were relied upon in both the criminal case and the charge memo, leading to the conclusion that the acquittal by the criminal court on merits precludes the necessity for a departmental inquiry. The court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions to support this position. 3. Another critical issue addressed was the delay and prejudice caused by allowing the charge memo to proceed to a departmental inquiry. The court highlighted that considerable time had passed since the incident in question occurred, with the authorities failing to take action promptly. The charge memo was issued post the criminal court's acquittal, further contributing to the prejudice faced by the first respondent. Considering these factors, the court concluded that allowing the charge memo to lead to a departmental inquiry would cause significant prejudice to the respondent. 4. In the final analysis, the court upheld the order quashing the charge memo, emphasizing that the first respondent should not face further departmental proceedings after the criminal court's acquittal on merits. The court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the need to prevent prejudice and acknowledging the delay and lack of action by the authorities over the years.
|
