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.