Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable in Murder Case Despite Acquittal: State of Rajasthan vs. Heem Singh (29 October 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 777

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J

Can a police officer be dismissed from service based on a departmental inquiry, even if they have been acquitted in a criminal trial for the same offense? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a Rajasthan police constable accused of murder. The court examined whether the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings differs from that in criminal trials and the extent to which a court can interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the impact of criminal acquittals on departmental proceedings.

Case Background

In 1992, Heem Singh was appointed as a police constable in Rajasthan. On 13 August 2002, he took leave and was due back on 16 August 2002, but reported for duty on 19 August 2002. He was granted leave extension due to his brother-in-law’s death.

On 15 August 2002, Daulat Singh filed a complaint about his brother Bhanwar Singh’s death, initially deemed an accident. However, investigations revealed it was a homicide. The police arrested Heem Singh on 9 September 2002, along with two co-accused, Lokesh Gurva and Iqbal Khan. A charge sheet was filed under Section 302, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that Heem Singh had a land dispute with Bhanwar Singh and held a grudge due to his father’s death after Bhanwar Singh’s unsuccessful witchcraft treatment. It was claimed Heem Singh had previously threatened to kill Bhanwar Singh.

During the criminal trial, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against Heem Singh on 18 January 2003 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. The charges included unauthorized absence, failure to inform superiors, involvement in Bhanwar Singh’s murder, and misrepresentation to get leave sanctioned.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Heem Singh and the co-accused on 8 October 2003, giving them the benefit of doubt. The court noted that key witnesses were either not present at the scene or had turned hostile, and the primary eyewitness’s testimony was inconsistent and untrustworthy. Despite the acquittal in the criminal trial, the disciplinary inquiry proceeded.

The disciplinary inquiry officer found all charges against Heem Singh proved, based on witness statements and the fact that the criminal court had not “completely acquitted” him. The disciplinary authority dismissed Heem Singh from service on 11 December 2003. His appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 17 June 2005, and a review by the State Government was also dismissed on 29 August 2008.

A Single Judge of the High Court rejected Heem Singh’s writ petition on 1 February 2018. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision on 24 April 2019, ordering his reinstatement without back wages.

Legal Framework

The disciplinary proceedings against Heem Singh were conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. This rule outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties on government employees.

The charges against Heem Singh included violations of service conduct and involvement in a criminal offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder.

The Supreme Court also considered the principle that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities,” as opposed to “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal trials.

Arguments

Appellants (State of Rajasthan) argued:

• The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials.
• Judicial review of disciplinary findings is limited, and courts should not re-appreciate evidence.
• The High Court failed to give due weight to the disciplinary orders.
• Evidence in the disciplinary inquiry showed:
  • Enmity between Heem Singh and the deceased.
  • Heem Singh’s presence near the scene of offense.
  • A prior complaint by the deceased against Heem Singh.
  • The criminal acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt, not a clean acquittal.

Respondent (Heem Singh) argued:

• The disciplinary inquiry violated rules, relying on a witness (Jodh Singh) whose testimony was discredited in cross-examination.
• The disciplinary authorities ignored crucial evidence and selectively examined the Sessions Court records.
• Heem Singh was not connected to the murder.
• The minor charge of taking extra casual leave was based on misrepresentation, which would not stand if the murder charge failed.
• He had taken the leave due to his brother-in-law’s death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority.
2. Whether the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in criminal trials.
3. Whether the acquittal in the criminal trial has any bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules.
5. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges against Heem Singh in the disciplinary proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Suresh Pathrella vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce [(2006) 10 SCC 572]* to differentiate the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials. It cited Samar Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. [(2011) 9 SCC 94]* to show that acquittal in a criminal case does not affect departmental proceedings. The Court used M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das [(2020) 1 SCC 1]* to define “preponderance of probabilities”. The Court cited Moni Shankar v. Union of India [(2008) 3 SCC 484]* to discuss the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. P. John Chandy and Co. (P) Ltd. v. John P. Thomas [(2002) 5 SCC 90]* was used to emphasize that a court must consider the whole statement of a witness, including cross-examination. The Court relied on Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India [(2009) 9 SCC 24]* to show that an acquittal in a criminal case is not a ground for interfering with a disciplinary order. The Court used Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598]* to clarify that only “honorable acquittals” affect disciplinary proceedings.

The Court also considered Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958, which governs the procedure for imposing major penalties on government employees, and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were not solely about the murder charge but also about the respondent’s conduct and its impact on the police force’s image. The court noted that the respondent’s presence near the crime scene, his prior enmity with the deceased, and his conduct had eroded public confidence in the police force.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had re-appreciated the evidence in the manner of a first appellate court, which is beyond the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The court reiterated that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities,” not “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” as in criminal trials.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

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

• The need to maintain public confidence in the police force.
• The fact that the respondent’s conduct, even if not amounting to a criminal conviction, had tarnished the image of the police.
• The difference in standards of proof between criminal trials and disciplinary proceedings.
• The limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, preventing courts from re-appreciating evidence.
• The fact that the acquittal in the criminal trial was not “honorable” but based on the benefit of doubt due to hostile witnesses.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and reputation of the police force. It highlighted that disciplinary proceedings serve a different purpose than criminal trials, focusing on the conduct of employees and its impact on public service.

The court also noted that while the evidence may not have been sufficient to secure a conviction in a criminal trial, it was sufficient to establish misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings based on the “preponderance of probabilities” standard. The court rejected the High Court’s view that the acquittal in the criminal trial should automatically lead to reinstatement.

The court quoted Lord Denning, J. in Miller v. Minister of Pensions, stating, “It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability.” The court also quoted Denning, L.J. in Bater v. Bater, stating, “… So also in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject -matter.” The court further quoted from Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, “When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.”

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary proceedings against government employees can proceed even if the employee has been acquitted in a criminal trial for the same offense.
• The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “preponderance of probabilities,” which is lower than the “proof beyond reasonable doubt” required in criminal trials.
• Courts should not re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters but can interfere if the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse.
• An acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically lead to reinstatement in service unless it is an “honorable acquittal.”
• Government employers have the right to maintain discipline and ensure the integrity of their services, even if it means dismissing employees who have been acquitted in criminal trials.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The Division Bench’s direction for reinstatement was set aside.
• The cessation from service will notionally take place on the respondent completing minimum qualifying service.
• The High Court’s direction that the respondent shall not be entitled to back wages was upheld.
• The retiral dues of the respondent shall be computed and released within three months.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that a government employee can be dismissed based on a departmental inquiry for misconduct, even if acquitted in a criminal trial for the same offense, as the standards of proof and purposes of the proceedings differ.

This judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials and serve to maintain the integrity and efficiency of public service. It clarifies that the standard of proof is “preponderance of probabilities” in disciplinary matters, and the courts have limited scope to interfere with the findings of disciplinary authorities unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse. This decision also reiterates that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement, particularly if the acquittal is not “honorable.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order for reinstatement. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were valid, and the dismissal of the police constable was justified based on the evidence and the need to maintain the integrity of the police force. The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials have different standards of proof and purposes, and an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically absolve an employee in disciplinary proceedings. The court directed that the respondent’s cessation from service would be considered from the date of completion of minimum qualifying service, and his retiral dues would be computed and released accordingly.

Category

• Service Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Judicial Review
  • Standard of Proof
  • Reinstatement
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Rajasthan Civil Services Rules
  • Rule 16, Rajasthan Civil Services Rules

FAQ

Q: Can a government employee be dismissed from service even if they are acquitted in a criminal case?

A: Yes, a government employee can be dismissed from service based on a departmental inquiry even if they are acquitted in a criminal case for the same offense. The standards of proof and purposesof the proceedings are different.

Q: What is the difference in the standard of proof between disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials?

A: In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is “preponderance of probabilities,” while in criminal trials, it is “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” This means that in disciplinary proceedings, the evidence needs to be more likely than not to support the charges, whereas in criminal trials, the evidence must prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

Q: Can a court interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority?

A: Courts have limited scope to interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority. They can only interfere if the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

Q: Does an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically lead to reinstatement in service?

A: No, an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically lead to reinstatement in service. The acquittal must be an “honorable acquittal,” which means the accused is completely exonerated and not just given the benefit of doubt.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials are distinct, the standard of proof is different, courts have limited scope to interfere in disciplinary matters, and an acquittal does not automatically lead to reinstatement unless it is an honorable acquittal. Government employers have the right to maintain discipline and ensure the integrity of their services, even if it means dismissing employees who have been acquitted in criminal trials.

Q: What was the final outcome of the case?

A: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order for reinstatement. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were valid, and the dismissal of the police constable was justified. The court directed that the respondent’s cessation from service would be considered from the date of completion of minimum qualifying service, and his retiral dues would be computed and released accordingly.