Acquittal In A Criminal Trial Has No Bearing Or Relevance On The Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court

Published by Admin on

Acquittal In A Criminal Trial Has No Bearing Or Relevance On The Disciplinary Proceedings

Case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Dilip Uttam Jayabhay

Coram: Justices M R Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case no.: CA 7403 OF 2021

Court Observation: “Therefore, at the best even if it is assumed that even driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. That does not mean that the respondent – workman was not at all negligent. Hence, it does not absolve him of the misconduct.”

“Even from the judgment and order passed by the criminal court it appears that the criminal court acquitted the respondent based on the hostility of the witnesses; the evidence led by the interested witnesses; lacuna in examination of the investigating officer; panch for the spot panchnama of the incident, etc. Therefore, criminal court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary in the departmental proceedings the misconduct of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused accident and due to which four persons died has been established and proved. As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. Therefore, the Industrial Court has erred in giving much stress on the acquittal of the respondent by the criminal court. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that the Industrial Court has not interfered with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority holding charge and misconduct proved in the departmental enquiry, and has interfered with the punishment of dismissal solely on the ground that same is shockingly disproportionate and therefore can be said to be an unfair labour practice as per clause No.1(g) of Schedule­ IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.”

Previous Posts

Not Always Obligatory To Remit Matter To Arbitration Tribunal Merely Because A Party Filed Application U/s 34(4) Arbitration Act: Supreme Court

Employee Who Refuses Promotion Offer Not Entitled To Financial Upgradation Merely Because She Suffered Stagnation: Supreme Court

Bank Doesn’t Hold Customer’s Deposit In Trust; Banker-Depositor Relationship That Of Creditor-Debtor: Supreme Court

AP (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act- After Grant Of Ownership Certificate In Terms Of Section 38¬E Protected Tenants Are Deemed To Be Owners: SC

Dowry Death Shall Be Presumed If It Is Shown That Wife Was Harassed For Dowry Soon Before Death: Supreme Court

Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court Download Judgement


Leave a Reply

Hey, wait!

Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates about our events, blogs and various opportunities.