Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice S.N Satyanarayana and Justice PGM Patil of Karnataka High Court passed an Order in the matter of S.N Murkloti v. The Commandant, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Another that an employee cannot seek the benefit of acquittal from criminal charges if the departmental enquiry is continuing against him in different charges.
The petitioner joined the service as a Police Constable in Karnataka State Reserve Police (KSRP) on 3/5/1993 and served in the Department till 2003. In October 2001, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case by the Belagavi Rural Police in Crime No.78/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 109, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 25(1)(b)(a), 28 and 29 of the Indian Arms Act. He was arrested and then released on bail.
Based on the criminal case registered against him, he was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry was also held against him. Disciplinary authority passed an order dated November 4, 2003, imposing the punishment of removing him from the service. The petitioner claim that, he is acquitted from all the criminal charges against him by the court, so he is entitled to all the benefit as an employee, but concerning authority reject his plea stating that charges against him in departmental inquiry are different from those of the criminal charges, so he is not entitled to any benefit.
The division bench after examining the fact of the case dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The court said that “By the time the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the penalty of dismissal from the service was already imposed and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of acquittal in the present case to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.”
The bench relied on the Supreme Court Judgement of Shashi Bushan Prasad v. Inspector General, General Industrial Security Forces and Others[1], to hold that, “The charges served on the petitioner in the departmental inquiry are different from the charges against the petitioner in the criminal case. Therefore, the charges in the criminal case and the imputation of charges in the disciplinary proceeding cannot be held as the same to hold that based on the acquittal in the criminal case, the departmental inquiry and proceeding have to be set aside.”
Court further said that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal has properly appreciated the material on record and held that the Disciplinary Authority has assigned the reasons while imposing the penalty and the Appellate Authority has also considered the ground of appeal and has given reasons while dismissing the appeal.
[1] 2019 SCC OnLine 952
86540
103860
630
114
59824