Acquittal of Delinquent Employee in a Criminal Case Does Not Debar Employer from Proceeding with Disciplinary Enquiry: Supreme Court

Acquittal of Delinquent Employee in a Criminal Case Does Not Debar Employer from Proceeding with Disciplinary Enquiry

Case: State of Karnataka vs Umesh

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant

Case No.: CA 1763-1764 of 2022

Court Observation: “In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. 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.”

In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

Previous Posts

SARFAESI Rajasthan HC Imposes 2Lac Cost For Misrepresentation, Not Availing Alternative Remedy, Not Impleading Necessary Parties & For Keeping Court In Dark

Non Placing & Non Consideration Of Bail Order Vitiates Detaining Authority Subjective Decision: Tripura HC Sets Aside Detention Order

Preventive Detention Not Tenable When Other Penal Laws Sufficient to Deal with the Situation: Gujarat High Court

Writ Petition to Initiate In-House Inquiry against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Can’t Upset Concurrent Findings on Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity or Error of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Suppression of Information about Criminal Case by Candidate in Selection Process Can Be Ignored In Certain Situations: Supreme Court

Claimants Can’t Be Allowed to Take Double Benefit of Two Claims Filed under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

Nothing On Record To Even Remotely Suggest That The Act Was Consensual: Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction Download Judgement

Keywords

Acquittal, Delinquent Employee