REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7130 OF 2009

SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

INSPECTOR GENERAL

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY

FORCE & ORS.           ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1.This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order

dated   17

th

  July,   2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Orissa

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2.The   brief   seminal   facts   which   may   be   relevant   for

consideration of the present appeal are that while serving as

Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (in short “CISF”)

1

Unit,   Rourkela   Steel   Plant,   Rourkela,   a   criminal   case   was

instituted against the appellant in Plantsite P.S. Case No. 378 of

1992 under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and he was arrested on

30

th

  November, 1992 on the allegation that he had provided a

country   made   revolver   to   Subash   Chandra   Agarwalla,   who

murdered   his   aunt   with   it,   giving   rise   to   Sessions   Trial   No.

188/41 of 1993.  At the same time, for a gross misconduct being

committed   by   him   in   discharge   of   his   duties,   disciplinary

proceedings   were   initiated   against   him   by   serving   a

Memorandum along with the charge­sheet dated 9

th

  February,

1993 under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969.

3.After holding disciplinary inquiry in terms of the procedure

prescribed under the scheme of Rules, 1969, the Inquiry Officer

after due compliance of the principles of natural justice, recorded

a finding of guilt and the charge against the delinquent appellant

stood proved as it reveals from the report of Inquiry(Annexure P­4

of the paper book) dated 27

th

  April, 1994.   After copy of the

inquiry report was made available to the appellant and after

affording   him   an   opportunity   of   hearing,   the   Disciplinary

Authority concurred with the finding recorded by the Inquiry

2

Officer and while upholding the guilt inflicted him with a penalty

of dismissal from service vide Order dated 21

st

 May, 1994.  It

may be relevant to note that the Sessions Trial No. 188/41 of

1993 was also proceeded against him and it reveals from the

record   that   since   the   material   prosecution   witnesses   stood

hostile, he was acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction

vide judgment dated 12

th

 September, 1995.  

4.Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by the

Disciplinary   Authority,   the   appellant   preferred   departmental

appeal primarily on the ground that since he has been acquitted

in the criminal case which is based on the same set of facts and

evidence,   the   order   of   dismissal   passed   by   the   Disciplinary

Authority is not legally sustainable.  The appeal was rejected by

the appellate authority vide order dated 24

th

  April, 1996 which

was further assailed before the Revisional Authority that also met

with the fate of its dismissal.  That came to be challenged in a

Writ Petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India.  The High Court of Orissa, on appraisal

of the material on record and taking note of the submission

alleged by the appellant of his acquittal in the criminal trial vide

3

judgment dated 12

th

 September, 1995 still had faced the order of

dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority being not sustainable but

the   High   Court   after   examining   in   totality   the   facts   and

circumstances   of   the   case,   dismissed   the   writ   petition   vide

judgment dated 17

th

  July, 2008 which is a subject matter of

appeal before us.

5.The main thrust of submission of learned counsel for the

appellant   is   that   since   both   the   criminal/departmental

proceedings were based on same set of facts and evidence, and

after   he   has   been   acquitted   by   the   Court   of   competent

jurisdiction   vide   judgment   dated   12

th

  September,   1995,   the

Disciplinary/Appellate Authority was under an obligation to give

precedence   of   the   judicial   proceedings   and   in   the   given

circumstances, inflicting penalty of dismissal from service based

on the report of inquiry was not legally sustainable and further

submitted that the error has not only been committed by the

departmental   authorities   but   also   by   the   High   Court   in   not

appreciating the submission made by the appellant in its right

earnest and in the given circumstances, the judgment impugned

dated 17

th

 July, 2008 deserves to be interfered by this Court.

4

6.In   support   of   his   submission,   learned   counsel   for   the

appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

reported in M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and

Ors.   

1

   and G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.   

2

7.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the

other hand, while supporting the finding recorded by the High

Court   under   the   impugned   judgment   dated   17

th

  July,   2008

further submits that the charge in a departmental inquiry and in

the   criminal   case   stood   against   the   appellant   were   totally

different, in the criminal case he was charged for committing an

offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the  Arms Act, while  in the

departmental inquiry, the charge was of a delinquency which he

committed   in   discharge   of   his   duties   in   handing   over   an

unlicensed fire arm with ammunitions(a country made revolver)

concealed in a brief case at the residence of Constable S.P. Patel

on 19

th

  November, 1992 which has facilitated Subash Chandra

Agarwalla (accused) in a criminal case against in committing an

1 1999(3) SCC 679

2 2006(5) SCC 446

5

offence under Section 302/392 IPC and under Section 27 of the

Arms Act.

8.According to the learned counsel, both the allegations are

based   on   different   sets   of   facts   and   evidence   having   no   co­

relationship and once the appellant has been held guilty in a

disciplinary inquiry has been rightly punished with the penalty of

dismissal from service, having no nexus with the judgment of

acquittal passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.  

9.Learned counsel further submits that what being urged by

the appellant has been examined by the High Court and this

being the settled principles of law that in a disciplinary inquiry

one has to proceed on the “preponderance of probability” whereas

in   the   criminal   case,   the   charge   is   to   be   “proved   beyond

reasonable   doubt”   being   based   on   two   sets   of   fundamental

principles which has been examined by the High Court in extenso

needs no interference by this Court.

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with

their assistance perused the material available on record.

6

11.At the outset, it may be apposite to take note of the Article

of charge which was imputed against him in the departmental

proceedings: ­

“No : 884481265 Constable Sashi Bhushan Prasad is

charged with gross misconduct and serious breach of

discipline unbecoming of a member of the armed force

in that he handed over an unlicensed fire arm with

ammunitions (a country made revolver) concealed in a

brief case at the residence of No. 88441220 Constable

S.P. Patel on 19.11.92 in the evening by suppressing

the fact that the same was used in a case of murder in

the same day.”

12.Disciplinary inquiry was held against him under Rule 34 of

CISF Rules, 1969 for the gross misconduct and serious breach

committed by him in discharge of his official duties in handing

over  unlicensed   fire  arm  with  ammunitions  (a   country  made

revolver) concealed in a brief case at the residence of Constable

S.P. Patel on 19

th

 November, 1992 and in support of the charge,

the statement of PW­5 Smt. Laxmi Patel w/o Constable S.P. Patel

was recorded.   In the course of disciplinary inquiry, she had

categorically stated that the appellant Constable came to her

house in the evening and handed over small brief case to her for

keeping it in the house.   When she asked the appellant at the

time of handing over of the brief case as to what it contained, the

7

appellant replied that it contained clothes.  When her husband

came back from duty, she told him of the brief case handed over

to her by the appellant for keeping it in the house.  Her husband

PW­4  Constable   S.P.   Patel   also  narrated   the   fact   which  was

reported by his wife PW­5 Laxmi Patel when he returned back on

19

th

 November, 1992.  

13.There   was   further   allegation   against   him   that   he   had

suppressed the fact that the country made revolver was used in

the murder case the same day.  After an independent inquiry was

conducted by the Inquiry Officer the charge stood proved against

him and   it was confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, after

affording him an opportunity of hearing, and being a serious

misconduct on the part of the appellant, which he had committed

in discharge of duties, penalty of dismissal was inflicted upon

him, after due compliance of the principles of natural justice in

terms of the scheme of CISF Rules 1969 and that came to be

confirmed   on   rejection   of   his   appeal/revision   by   the

Appellate/Revisional Authority and also by the High Court on

dismissal of the  writ petition vide judgment  dated 17

th

  July,

2008.

8

14.At the same time, in the criminal case which was instituted

against   him,   the   charge   against   the   appellant   was  “Accused

Sashi bhusan Prasad stands charged U/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms

Act.”  

15.So far as the charge in the departmental inquiry and the

charge in the criminal case is concerned, indubitably it was

different having been inquired on an independent set of facts and

evidence in a departmental/judicial proceedings.  That apart, the

fact which reveal from the judgment of acquittal passed by the

Court of competent jurisdiction dated 12

th

 September, 1995 that

Shankar Prasad Patel and his wife Laxmi Patel had appeared in a

criminal case as PW­4 and PW­5 and both were declared hostile.

Apart from that, the other material witnesses were also declared

hostile and that was the reason for which the Court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against

him while acquitting him vide judgment dated 12

th

  September,

1995.

9

16.The facts noticed by us which have been inquired in a

disciplinary inquiry and in the judicial proceedings indisputedly

are based on different allegations and the set of evidence not

based on the same facts and circumstances and in the given

situation, the very submission made by the appellant of taking

the benefit of acquittal in a judicial proceedings instituted against

him on the plea of having nexus with the disciplinary inquiry

loses its foundation.

17.The scope of departmental enquiry and judicial proceedings

and the effect of acquittal by a criminal Court has been examined

by a three Judge Bench of this Court in  Depot Manager A.P.

State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya

and Others   

3

.  The relevant para is as under:­

“…The   purpose   of   departmental   enquiry   and   of

prosecution are two different and distinct aspects.

The criminal prosecution is launched for an offence

for   violation   of   a   duty,   the   offender   owes   to   the

society or for breach of which law has provided that

the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So

crime is an act of commission in violation of law or

of   omission   of   public   duty.   The   departmental

enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and

efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be

expedient   that   the   disciplinary   proceedings   are

conducted   and   completed   as   expeditiously   as

possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down

3 1997(2) SCC 699

10

any   guidelines   as   inflexible   rules   in   which   the

departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed

pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent

officer. Each case requires to be considered in the

backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There

would   be   no   bar   to   proceed   simultaneously   with

departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case

unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave

nature involving complicated questions of fact and

law. Offence generally implies infringement of public

(sic duty), as distinguished from mere private rights

punishable   under   criminal   law.   When   trial   for

criminal   offence   is   conducted   it   should   be   in

accordance   with   proof   of   the   offence   as   per   the

evidence   defined   under   the   provisions   of   the

Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental

enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings

relates   to   conduct   or   breach   of   duty   of   the

delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct

defined under the relevant statutory rules or law.

That the strict standard of proof or applicability of

the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal

position.  The   enquiry   in   the   departmental

proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent

officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in

an   offence   in   criminal   charge.   It   is   seen   that

invariably   the   departmental   enquiry   has   to   be

conducted expeditiously so as to effectuate efficiency

in public administration and the criminal trial will

take   its   own   course.  The   nature   of   evidence   in

criminal   trial   is   entirely   different   from   the

departmental   proceedings.   In   the   former,

prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt   on  the  touchstone  of  human  conduct.  The

standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is

not the same as of the criminal trial. The evidence

also   is   different   from   the   standard   point   of   the

Evidence   Act.   The   evidence   required   in   the

departmental   enquiry   is   not   regulated   by   the

Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is

required   to   be   seen   is   whether   the   departmental

enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in

his   defence   at   the   trial   in   a   criminal   case.   It   is

always a question of fact to be considered in each

case depending on its own facts and circumstances.

In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure

to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It

has nothing to do with the culpability of the offence

11

under  Sections 304­A and 338, IPC. Under these

circumstances,   the   High   Court   was   not   right   in

staying the proceedings.”

        (Emphasis supplied)

18.The exposition has been further affirmed by a three Judge

Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager

(PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia and Others   

4

,

this Court held as under: ­

“As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal

court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order

does not preclude the Corporation from taking an

action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment,

the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal

court would not debar an employer from exercising

power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations

in   force.   The   two   proceedings,   criminal   and

departmental, are entirely different. They operate in

different   fields   and   have   different   objectives.

Whereas   the   object   of   criminal   trial   is   to   inflict

appropriate   punishment   on   the   offender,   the

purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the

delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in

accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial,

incriminating   statement   made   by   the   accused   in

certain   circumstances   or   before   certain  officers   is

totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of

evidence   and   procedure   would   not   apply   to

departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which

is necessary to order a conviction is different from

the   degree   of   proof   necessary   to   record   the

commission   of   delinquency.   The   rule   relating   to

appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is

also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is

on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is

able   to   prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused   “beyond

reasonable   doubt”,   he   cannot   be   convicted   by   a

court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other

4 2005(7) SCC 764

12

hand,   penalty   can   be   imposed   on   the   delinquent

officer   on   a   finding   recorded   on   the   basis   of

“preponderance   of   probability”.   Acquittal   of   the

appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does

not      ipso facto       absolve him from the liability under

the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We

are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of

the   appellant   that   since   he   was   acquitted   by   a

criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him

from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

  (Emphasis supplied)

19.We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid

down   by   this   Court   and   it   is   fairly   well   settled   that   two

proceedings   criminal   and   departmental   are   entirely   different.

They operate in different  fields  and have  different  objectives.

Whereas   the   object   of   criminal   trial   is   to   inflict   appropriate

punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings

is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose

penalty in accordance with the service Rules.  The degree of proof

which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the

degree   of   proof   necessary   to   record   the   commission   of

delinquency.  Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in

the two proceedings is also not similar.  In criminal law, burden

of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able

to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he

cannot   be   convicted   by   a   Court   of   law   whereas   in   the

13

departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent

on   a   finding   recorded   on   the   basis   of   ‘preponderance   of

probability’.  Acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction in a

judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent

from   the   liability   under   the   disciplinary   jurisdiction   of   the

authority.   This what has been considered by the High Court in

the impugned judgment in detail and needs no interference by

this Court.  

20.The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which

the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a

case where a question arose for consideration as to whether the

departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on

the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued

simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as under:­

“The   conclusions   which   are   deducible   from

various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

(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

14

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 charge­sheet.

(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.”

21.It may not be of assistance to the appellant in the instant

case for the reason that the charge levelled against the appellant

in   the   criminal   case   and   departmental   proceedings   of   which

detailed reference has been made were on different sets of facts

and   evidence   having   no   nexus/co­relationship.     The   kind   of

criminal act/delinquency which he had committed in discharge

of his duties in the course of employment.   That apart, much

15

before the judgment of the criminal case could be pronounced,

the departmental enquiry was concluded and after the Inquiry

Officer had held him guilty, he was punished with the penalty of

dismissal from service.

22.The   judgment   in  G.M.   Tank   case(supra)   on   which   the

learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case

where this Court had proceeded on the premise that the charges

in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are grounded

upon the same sets of facts and evidence.  This may not be of any

assistance to the appellant as we have observed that in the

instant case the charge in the criminal case and departmental

enquiry were different having no nexus/co­relationship based on

different sets of facts and evidence which has been independently

enquired in the disciplinary proceedings and in a criminal trial

and acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not absolve the

appellant from the liability under the disciplinary proceedings

instituted against him in which he had been held guilty and in

sequel   thereto   punished   with   the   penalty   of   dismissal   from

service.  

16

23.It is not the case of the appellant that any error committed

in the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Rules 1969 has

been violated or opportunity to hearing has not been afforded or

the principles of natural justice has been violated, in absence

thereof, it is otherwise not open for the Courts to interfere in the

disciplinary proceedings under its limited scope of review under

Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

24.Consequently, in our considered view, the appeal is without

substance and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

25.Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

………..………………………………J.

(N.V. RAMANA)

………..………………………………J.

(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

………………………………………..J.

(AJAY RASTOGI)

New Delhi

August 01, 2019

17

18