Date of judgement:
10th February, 2022
Bench:
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
Parties:
Plaintiffs – Jahan Singh
Defendants – Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd Trifed and Anr
SUBJECT
The Delhi High Court in this case held that where an acquittal is based only on benefit of doubt and is not an honourable acquittal, the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement as a matter of right. In criminal cases, offense has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt while in disciplinary proceedings, it has to be "proved on preponderance of probability".
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
- Article 14: Equality before law
- Article 16: Equal opportunity in public employment matters
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
- Section 15: Punishment for attempt.
OVERVIEW
- The petitioner had been convicted by the Special Court under Section 7 and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was subsequently dismissed from the post of Accountant under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
- Thereafter, the petitioner had appealed before the Delhi High Court and was acquitted of all charges.
- The petitioners contended that since the CBI or the State had not appealed against the acquittal Judgment, the judgment had attained finality. Furthermore, the petitioners had exhausted the alternate remedy by appealing before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed as the Tribunal did not have the requisite jurisdiction.
- The petitioner pleaded that he was condemned unheard and was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The allegations against him had not been established by way of a departmental enquiry.
- The petitioner contended that this was in violation of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution.
- The respondents pleaded that they had not received any communication from CBI regarding the finality of the High Court judgment. Furthermore, since the provisions of the Limitation Act had not been stringently applied in view of the Pandemic, the mere argument that the Limitation period of appeal before the Apex Court had expired could not prove the finality of the judgment.
- Furthermore, the respondents stated that since the charge against the petitioner was of illegal gratification, it indicated a degree of moral turpitude and lack of integrity in the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents said that as per settled law, the competent authorities were entitled to determine the issue of reinstatement of the petitioner keeping in view of his conduct of demanding bribery.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right?
ANALYSIS
- The Court noted that the petitioner's acquittal was based on benefit of doubt and was not an honourable acquittal.
- The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar &Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 797, and noted that mere acquittal is no conclusive ground of candidate's suitability for the concerned post.
- In the instant case, the charge against the petitioner was for demanding bribes. The reason for the acquittal was that the charge of demanding bribes was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and there were contradictions in the prosecution's case.
- Thus, in view of the serious charges against the petitioner and the inconclusive grounds of acquittal, the Court observed that such circumstances "would cast a shadow of doubt, in the eyes of the employer, insofar as his suitability for re-employment/reinstatement in public service is concerned"
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court has rightly held that reinstatement cannot be claimed as a matter of right when acquittal is not honourable. The respondents in this case were permitted to determine the issue as per their own assessment of the integrity of the petitioner. Certainly, the charges of bribery are serious and the absolute innocence of the petitioner needs to be established before he is reinstated.
