STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs SANKAR GHOSH
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-010729-010729 / 2013
Diary number: 31949 / 2010
Advocates: Vs
A. VENAYAGAM BALAN
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10729 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29808 of 2010)
State of West Bengal & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
Sankar Ghosh … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question
whether the respondent, who was dismissed from service
following disciplinary proceedings, is liable to be
reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court on the ground
of identity of charges in the departmental as well as
criminal proceedings.
Page 2
2
3. The respondent was working as a Sepoy in the 2nd
Battalion of the Kolkata Armed Police. At the time of the
incident, he was working as a Sepoy on deputation in the
Traffic Department of Kolkata Police. He was arrested by
the police in connection with Khardah P.S. Case No.383
dated 12.11.2013 and charged for the offences under
Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code read
with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for his complicity
in the commission of a dacoity using a motor cycle bearing
Registration No.WB-24/F-3050. On his arrest, he was
produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Barrackpore, and he was remanded to police custody till
28.11.2003 and then to judicial custody till 30.3.2004.
Later, he was released on 1.4.2004. The department
placed the respondent under suspension w.e.f. 26.11.2003
and was later served with a charge sheet on 1.6.2004.
The operative portion of the charge sheet reads as
follows :-
“You Sepoy 14610 Sankar Ghosh of 2nd Bn., K.A.P. working on deputation to Traffic Department, Kolkata Police, presently under suspension w.e.f. 26.11.2003 F.N. are charged
Page 3
3
with gross misconduct unbecoming of a member of the Kolkata Police Force in that :-
1) You were arrested on 26.11.2003 by Khardah P.S. for your direct complicity in commission of dacoity vide Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated 12.11.2003 u/S. 392 IPC adding Section 395/412 CPC and 25/27 Arms Act by using a motor cycle T.V.S. Victor Blue coloured bearing Regd No.24F/3050
2) You were produced before the Ld. SDJM Barrackpore on the same day (2611.03) and resumed P.C. till 28.11.2003 and then to J.C. till 30.3.2004. You were released from Dum Dum Central Jail on 1.4.2004.
3) It appears from the record that you have no stay out permission from the competent authority and you were involved in the criminal case in the jurisdiction of Khardah P.S. and also arrested from outside the Kolkata Police jurisdiction.
4) You being a member of the disciplined force, your involved in such type of heinous crime tarnished the image/prestige of the Kolkata Police force in the estimation of the members of the public in large.
You are hereby directed to state whether you plead guilty to the charges or want an open enquiry into the matter. Your written reply should reach within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this charge.
Page 4
4
Deputy Commission of Police Traffic Department, Kolkata.”
4. The respondent replied to the charge sheet and a
detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer.
On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer after
perusing the materials on record and after hearing the
parties drew up his report on the enquiry on 10.11.2004.
The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the
charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority,
after considering the Enquiry Report as well as after
hearing the respondent, concurred with the views
expressed by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately decided
to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. The
respondent was, therefore, served with the notice to show
cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.
A detailed reply was submitted by the respondent. After
considering the reply, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed
the respondent from the Police Force w.e.f. 27.12.2004.
The respondent then filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority.
Page 5
5
5. The Appellate Authority gave a personal hearing to
the respondent on 28.2.2005. The Appellate Authority
after having noticed that the order of dismissal was not
passed by the appropriate authority, set aside the order
and left it to the appropriate authority to pass appropriate
orders based on the Enquiry Report. The Deputy
Commission of Police, 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police,
who is the competent authority, after considering the
entire matter passed a final order dismissing the
respondent from service w.e.f. 2.6.2005. Against the said
order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Police (A.P.),
Kolkata Police. The Appellate Authority after considering
the entire matter, rejected the appeal vide its order dated
25.8.2005.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, who was
trying the criminal case levelled against the respondent
and five other accused persons for committing the offence
under 395/412 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/27/35 of the
Arms Act, in the meanwhile found that the charges
Page 6
6
levelled against the accused persons including the
respondent were not found proved and consequently vide
judgment dated 7.12.2007 acquitted all the accused
persons. The respondent on his acquittal in the criminal
case filed O.A. No.3961 of 2008 before the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after perusing the
judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting the respondent
and others took the view that the said judgment should
have a bearing on the decision of the Enquiry Officer
regarding disciplinary proceedings. Holding so, the
appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary
Authority to reinstate the respondent in view of the
acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court in the
criminal case.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of West
Bengal along with two others, filed W.P.S.T. No.570 of
2009 before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court
dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Tribunal,
against which this appeal has been preferred.
Page 7
7
8. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that the
Tribunal and the High Court have committed an error in
directing reinstatement of the respondent in service
considering the mere fact that the respondent along with
others was acquitted by the Criminal Court. Learned
senior counsel submitted that the respondent was not
honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court. The
acquittal was by way of giving benefit of doubt since the
accused persons could not be identified during the T.I.
parade. Further, it was also pointed out that the High
Court has not properly appreciated Regulation 4 of
Chapter 19 of the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968,
which was applicable to the respondent.
9. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, submitted that the Tribunal and the High
Court have correctly applied the ratio laid down by this
Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines
Ltd. & Anr. [(1993) 3 SCC 679], Sulekh Chand & Salek
Chand v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [1994 Supp.
Page 8
8
(3) SCC 674] and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[(2006) 5 SCC 446] and ordered reinstatement of the
respondent. Learned counsel also submitted that since
the accused persons could not be identified in the TI
Parade, their complicity could not be established.
Consequently, the acquittal of the respondent was an
honourable acquittal. Going by the various judicial
precedents laid down by this Court, learned counsel
submitted that the respondent was rightly reinstated in
service and the order passed by the Tribunal as well as
the High Court calls for no interference.
10. We may, at the very outset, point out that the
respondent was a member of the disciplined force. He
was working as a Sepoy in the 2nd Battalion of the Kolkata
Armed Force and at the relevant point of time he was
working as Sepoy on deputation with the traffic
department of Kolkata Police. It is true that the
respondent was dismissed from service due to his
involvement in the criminal case, wherein he was charged
with the offences under Sections 395/412 IPC and
Page 9
9
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. It is also the stand of the
department that being a member of the disciplined force,
his involvement in such a heinous crime tarnished the
image/prestige of the Kolkata Police Force in the
estimation of the members of public in general. Before
the Enquiry Officer from the side of the department, four
witnesses were examined, including Jiban Chakraborty,
the S.I. Police. Exh. A-3 to A-12 are the documents
produced before the Enquiry Officer. PW3, S.I. Jiban
Chakraborty, the Inspector of Police before the Enquiry
Officer deposed as follows :
“During investigation he arrested some suspects into this case. In pursuance to the statement of the suspects he arrested the C.O. from his residence situated in 389, Milangarh, Natagarh under P.S. Ghosla (24 Pgs.-N) on 26.11.03 at 01.05 hrs. He prepared the arrest memo (Exhibit No.A5). He conducted in search at this residence and recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his possession being the stolen recovered money of the said case. He also recovered the motor cycle bearing No.WB24F- 3050 from his house. During investigation he also recovered one private car. He stated that both the motor cycle and the private car were used during the commission of the crime. During investigation he came to know that the O.C. is a Constable of Kolkata Police posted to 2nd Bn of Kolkata Police working on deputation traffic deptt. The C.O. was produced before the
Page 10
10
Ld. Court of SDJM, Barrackpore and was remanded to P.O. till 29.11.03 on further production, the C.O. was remanded to jail custody and enlarged on Bail on 30.3.04. After completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the C.O. & others u/s 395/412 CPC, 25/27/35 Arms Act
During cross examination, the P.W. stated that he seized motor cycle was registered in the name of Sri Swapan Ghosh and the same was seized from the possession of Swapan Ghosh. During cross examination the P.W. stated that it is not a fact that the C.O. has no complicity into the case. After thorough investigation & enquiry prima facie charge established against the C.O. and others.
11. The Enquiry Officer believed the evidence of PW3
and concluded that the charges levelled against the
respondent were proved beyond any shadow of doubt,
except the charge that the respondent stayed out without
permission. PW3 had categorically stated that he
conducted a search at the residence of the respondent
and recovered a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his possession
being the stolen money. He had also recovered the motor
cycle bearing No.WB24F-3050 from the respondent’s
house which was used for the commission of the crime.
During the investigation, he had also recovered one
Page 11
11
private car from the respondent’s residence. Investigation
revealed that both the motor cycle and the private car
were used during the commission of the crime.
12. We have gone through the judgment of the Sessions
Court. Sessions Court though acquitted the accused
persons including the respondent, concluded as follows :-
“While there are vital evidence on the record regarding recovery of money, recovery of firearm, recovery of unused writing pad of Dr. R.P. Mitra, but the most vital missing link is the identification made by him in the TI Parade but because of the time lag between the date of incident and the date of TI Parade and the date of his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (1.12.03) and the further time lag of about six days for the TI Parade on 6.12.03 does not convince my mind to accept such evidence relating to identity of the accused persons during the trial could not be bridged by the prosecution through any evidence. The prosecution, therefore, fails as the identity of the accused persons has not been established before the Court during the trial.”
13. We, therefore, notice that both the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Sessions Court were of the view
that there are vital evidence on record regarding recovery
of money, fire arms and recovery of unused writing pad of
Dr. R.P. Mitra, PW3, the SI deposed further that the
Page 12
12
money was recovered from the house of the respondent
so also the motor bike as well as the car. The Sessions
Court, however, had to acquit the respondent since Dr.
R.P. Mitra could not identify him during the TI Parade. On
going through the judgment of the Sessions Court, it
cannot be said that the respondent was honourably
acquitted.
14. In Deputy Inspector General v. S. Samuthiram
[(2013) 1 SCC 598], this Court in paragraph 24, 25 and 26
of the judgment has elaborately examined the meaning
and scope of the “honourable acquittal” and held as
follows :-
“26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish
Page 13
13
guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.”
15. The judgment of S. Samuthiram (supra) was later
followed by another Bench of this Court in Commissioner
of Police, New Delhi & Anr. V. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7
SCC 685].
16. We indicate that the respondent could not lay his
hand to any rule or regulation applicable to the Police
Force stating that once an employee has been acquitted
by a Criminal Court, as a matter of right, he should be
reinstated in service, despite all the disciplinary
proceedings. In otherwise there is no rule of automatic
reinstatement on acquittal by a Criminal Court even
Page 14
14
though the charges levelled against the delinquent before
the Enquiry Officer as well as the Criminal Court are the
same. On this aspect, reference may be made to para 27
of the judgment in S. Samuthiram (supra), which reads
as under:-
“27. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.”
17. Regulation 4 of Chapter 19 of the Police Regulations
of Calcutta, 1968, which is applicable to the case in hand,
specifically provides that acquittal or discharge in a
criminal proceeding shall not be a bar to award
punishment in a departmental proceeding in respect of
Page 15
15
the same cause or matter. The said Regulation is
extracted below for easy reference :
“4. Discharge or acquittal not a bar to departmental punishment. – An order of discharge or acquittal of a Police Officer shall not be a bar to the award of departmental punishment to that officer in respect of the same cause or matter.”
18. Above rule indicates that even if there is identity of
charges levelled against the respondent before the
Criminal Court as well as before the Enquiry Officer, an
order of discharge or acquittal of a police officer by a
Criminal Court shall not be a bar to the award of the
departmental punishment. The Tribunal as well as the
High Court have not considered the above-mentioned
provision and have committed a mistake in holding that
since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of
the same charges, reinstatement was automatic. We find
it difficult to support the finding recorded by the Tribunal
which was confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore,
allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal,
Page 16
16
which was affirmed by the High Court. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
…..………………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi, November 28, 2013.