Punjab and Haryana high court: Criminal and departmental proceedings entirely different

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that the criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely different and both operate in different fields and have different objectives.
The HC was of the view that the 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.
“The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction,” observed the HC, while referring to the rulings given by apex court on such matters.
Division bench comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri of the HC has passed these orders while allowing an appeal filed by the Haryana government against the order passed by a single bench of the HC.
In its order dated October 23, 2019, a single bench of the HC had ordered the state government to reinstate Satish Kumar, an assistant sub-inspector rank officer of the Haryana police into the service. The ASI was dismissed from the service after he was caught red-handed by the state vigilance bureau for accepting bribe. Single bench had directed the state reinstate him in service while quashing the departmental proceedings of chargesheet dated April 21, 2015, including the report of the inquiry dated May 26, 2015.
The single bench had also ordered the state to release all statutory benefits to the ASI. The reasoning as such to arrive at the said conclusion by the learned judge was that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings were overlapping and therefore, it would be oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings.
While challenging these orders before the division bench, counsel for the Haryana government argued that Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) would have to be examined, which protected the police officers on account of an acquittal and they were not to be proceeded departmentally on the same charge or on a different charge on the basis of evidence cited in a criminal case.
It was submitted that there were exceptions to the said rule and where the criminal charge fails on the technical ground and the prosecution witnesses have been won over, the benefit was not to be given.
It was further submitted that standard of proof in criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings is different and it was only the preponderance of probability which would prevail and merely acquittal would not be a ground as such to exonerate the erring cop, state had argued.
After hearing all the parties, the division bench set-aside the single bench order observing that the single judge failed to keep the said principles in mind and has wrongly interfered in the departmental inquiry by quashing the chargesheet and the inquiry report only on the ground that there were overlapping and there was an acquittal as such.