Supreme Court overturns reinstatement of police constable dismissed for misconduct: State of Rajasthan vs. Phool Singh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: September 02, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 822
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can an employee dismissed for misconduct be reinstated simply because they were acquitted in a related criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the distinct nature of departmental and criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically warrant reinstatement in service, particularly when the departmental inquiry has found the employee guilty of misconduct. This judgment, authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, overturns the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to reinstate a police constable, underscoring the importance of maintaining discipline within the police force. The bench comprised Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

In 1987, Phool Singh, a constable in the Rajasthan Police Service, was stationed at Police Station Mania, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. On October 15, 1987, while off-duty but in police uniform, Phool Singh, along with one Lokman, allegedly confronted Mahesh Kumar. They demanded ₹100 from him and when he refused, they tried to take his motorcycle. When a crowd gathered, Phool Singh allegedly brandished a gun and then fled to his house. Inside his house, he fired the gun, injuring his family members and damaging property. An FIR (No. 146/1987) was lodged against Phool Singh under Sections 392, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 34 of the Police Act, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Phool Singh and Lokman. The Trial Court convicted Phool Singh under Section 392 of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment for each offense on March 31, 1994. However, the Sessions Judge, Dholpur, later overturned this conviction, giving Phool Singh the “benefit of doubt.”

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A departmental inquiry was initiated against Phool Singh on three charges: being intoxicated and roaming in uniform, demanding documents and a bribe, and firing a gun that injured family members. The disciplinary authority found all three charges proven and dismissed him from service on December 18, 1989. His appeal and review were also dismissed on August 23, 1990, and June 3, 1994, respectively. After his acquittal in the criminal case, Phool Singh filed a writ petition in 1998 before the Rajasthan High Court. The Single Judge quashed his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with 50% back wages, relying on the acquittal in the criminal case. The Division Bench upheld this decision on September 9, 2020. The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the principles governing departmental proceedings versus criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court highlighted the difference in the standard of proof required in each. In departmental proceedings, the standard is “preponderance of probabilities,” while in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court also considered the implications of an acquittal in a criminal case on the validity of a dismissal order based on a departmental inquiry. The relevant sections mentioned in the judgment include:

• Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for robbery.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 34 of the Police Act, which deals with penalties for misconduct by police officers.
• Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, which deals with possessing or carrying prohibited arms or ammunition.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan:

• The State argued that Phool Singh was a member of a disciplined force and had committed serious acts of misconduct, including threatening and extorting money, being intoxicated in public, and using a firearm.
• The State contended that Phool Singh was given a full opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceedings, including the chance to cross-examine witnesses and present his own defense.
• The State asserted that the acquittal in the criminal case was irrelevant to the departmental proceedings, as the standards of proof are different.

Arguments by Phool Singh (Respondent):

• Phool Singh argued that since he was acquitted in the criminal case on the same set of facts and charges, his dismissal order should be quashed and he should be reinstated.
• He relied on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 679], where the Supreme Court had ordered reinstatement in similar circumstances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Can Phool Singh be reinstated in service solely because he was acquitted by a criminal court on the same set of charges for which he faced departmental proceedings?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines and penalizes robbery.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 34 of the Police Act: This section deals with penalties for misconduct by police officers.
• Section 3/25 of the Arms Act: This section deals with possessing or carrying prohibited arms or ammunition.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, holding that the acquittal of Phool Singh in the criminal case did not automatically entitle him to reinstatement. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of departmental and criminal proceedings, noting that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities,” while in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court distinguished the case from Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 679], stating that the latter had unique facts and did not lay down a universal rule. The Court also noted that Phool Singh’s acquittal was not an honorable acquittal but was based on a “benefit of doubt.”

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 679]* The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was based on unique facts, including the denial of subsistence allowance and the failure to stay departmental proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The Court clarified that this case did not establish a universal rule for reinstatement following acquittal in a criminal case.
• Union of India v. Sitaram Mishra [(2019) 20 SCC 588]* The Court followed this judgment, which held that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically lead to reinstatement in service. The Court emphasized that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have different standards of proof.
• Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764]* The Court reiterated the principle that criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely different, operate in different fields, and have different objectives. This case supported the Court’s view that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate a finding of misconduct in a departmental inquiry.
• State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh [(2020) SCC OnLine SC 886]* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the disciplinary authority’s role in determining misconduct and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court noted that judicial review should focus on whether the disciplinary process was fair and not on re-appreciating the evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Distinct Nature of Proceedings: The Court emphasized the fundamental difference between departmental and criminal proceedings, particularly in the standard of proof required.
• Disciplinary Authority’s Role: The Court recognized the disciplinary authority’s domain in determining misconduct and the limited scope of judicial review.
• Facts of the Case: The Court noted that Phool Singh’s acquittal was not an honorable one but was based on a “benefit of doubt.”
• Consistency with Precedents: The Court followed the precedents set in Union of India v. Sitaram Mishra [(2019) 20 SCC 588] and Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764], which clearly distinguished between criminal and departmental proceedings.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was that the departmental proceedings were valid and had followed due process. The acquittal in the criminal case was not an “honorable acquittal” but was based on a “benefit of doubt,” which did not negate the findings of misconduct in the departmental inquiry. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary authority is best equipped to determine misconduct and that judicial review is limited to ensuring a fair process.

The Court considered the argument that the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 679] supported the respondent’s case for reinstatement. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that it had unique facts, including the denial of subsistence allowance and the failure to stay departmental proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The Court clarified that Capt. M. Paul Anthony did not lay down a universal rule for reinstatement following acquittal in a criminal case.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“A departmental proceeding is different from a criminal proceeding. The 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”.”

“The fact that the first respondent was acquitted in the course of the criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the disciplinary proceedings.”

“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 departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’…”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, with the opinion authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Key Takeaways

• An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to reinstatement in service if the employee was dismissed following a departmental inquiry.
• Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof.
• The disciplinary authority has the primary role in determining misconduct, and judicial review is limited.
• An acquittal based on “benefit of doubt” does not negate the findings of misconduct in a departmental inquiry.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Rajasthan High Court, thereby upholding the dismissal of Phool Singh from service.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an acquittal in a criminal case, particularly one based on the “benefit of doubt,” does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement in service if they have been dismissed following a departmental inquiry. This judgment reinforces the established legal position that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct and operate under different standards of proof. It clarifies that the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 679] should not be interpreted as a universal rule for reinstatement, but rather as a decision based on its unique facts. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline in the police force and upholds the authority of disciplinary bodies to take appropriate action against misconduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Phool Singh clarifies that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically warrant reinstatement in service, especially when a departmental inquiry has found the employee guilty of misconduct. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of departmental and criminal proceedings and the different standards of proof required in each. This decision reinforces the disciplinary authority’s role in maintaining order and efficiency within the police force and sets a clear precedent for similar cases in the future.