Brief Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the writ petitioner was holding the post of Police constable Grade 1 and a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner subsequently criminal proceedings along with departmental disciplinary positions were initiated. The criminal case ended with an order of acquittal. However, despite the acquittal, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry and thereafter imposed the penalty of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. The appeal for the same was rejected by the DIG of police.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Disciplinary authority had failed to consider the order of acquittal passed by the competent Criminal Court of Law and also erred in holding that the charges held proved. Furthermore, they contended that when the charges in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings are similar, the order of acquittal made by the competent Criminal Court is to be considered to exonerate the writ petitioner from the. The findings of the criminal court were also not considered. Thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected
to the contentions raised by petitioners by stating that the allegation
against the writ petitioner were grave.
Writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action for his
reprehensible conduct while performing his duties in a drunken state, as
well as assaulting a Sub-inspector and using
unparliamentary language. He further drew the attention of the court
regarding the deposition made by the witnesses before the Criminal
Court. All the witnesses belonged to
the police department but had turned hostile and deposed contrarily
before the Criminal Court of law which resulted in the order of
acquittal.
Hiigh Court’s Observation
The learned bench opined that the allegation against the writ petitioner was grave. The Police Department Officials themselves have turned indifferently and given contrary statements before the Criminal Court of Law. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons because of the conduct of the Police Department witnesses.
The court reiterated that the Apex Court as well as the High Court
held in several judgments that acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar
for the continuance of the departmental
disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, The standard of proof required to
convict a person under the Criminal Law is strict and no such strict
proof is required for the punishment of an employee.
Thus, the court did not find any excessiveness regarding the quantum
of punishment and noted that the respondents have followed the
procedures as contemplated under the
Discipline and Appeal Rules Judgement. The writ petition along with the
connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed with no order to costs.
Case TITLE: P.Arumugam vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police&Ors
CORAM: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M.Subramaniam
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments