Acquittal in a criminal case does not entail in automatic reinstatement of an employee dismissed after holding a regular disciplinary proceedings inspite of identical charges

A question is always raised as to whether the employee dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings , is liable to be reinstated on aquttal by a criminal court on the ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings. This question has been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the judgement delivered on 28-11-2013 in the case of State of West Bengal  v/s Shanakr Ghosh.

The respndent was charged with offences under Indian Penal Code read with provisons in Arms Act. He was arrested and in jail for about 3 months and later released on bail. He was suspended and a regular disciplinary proceedings were held . The charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were almost identical. As a result of disciplinary proceedings the employee came to be dismissed from service. His appeal was also dismissed.Later on criminal case he was aquitted. He approached the tribunal praying for issue of directions to reinstate him in view of his aquittal.His prayer was allowed and his reinstatement was ordered.The state government filed an appeal to West Bengal  High Court and the same came to be dismissed. The state Government being aggrieved, filed an S.L.P. to the supreme court challenging the order of the tribunal and High Court.

The supreme court after hearing the arguments and going through the evidence and the judgment in criminal case found out that it was not a clean and honorable acquittal and held that on the basis of such acqittal, the reinstatement of an employee dismissed from service after holding regular departmental proceedings cannot be ordered. The supreme court held as under, 

" 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 offcer by a criminal court shall not be a bar to the award of the departmental punishmnet." and the appeal filed by the state government was allowed and the orderes of the Tribunal and the High court was set aside.

The above said judgement is available on this blog under caption "Recent and Important ". The same can be downloaded for study. 

Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2011

People who expose corruption in government or irregularities by public functionaries can now be free of any fear of victimisation. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011, which provides a mechanism for protecting the identity of whistleblowers — a term given to people who expose corruption — got the assent of President . Gazettle notification of the Act was issued on 12 th May 2014.

The above said Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2011 is available on this blog under caption " Worth Visiting "

The Act  provides for a system to encourage people to disclose information about corruption or the wilful misuse of power by public servants, including ministers.

As per the law, a person can make a public interest disclosure on corruption before a competent authority — which is at present the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The government, by notification, can appoint any other body also for receiving such complaints about corruption, the Act says. The Act, however, lays down punishment of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 30,000 for false or frivolous complaints.

“Any person who makes a mala fide disclosure, knowing that it was incorrect or false or misleading, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to two years as well as a fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000,” according to a gazette notification of the Act issued on Monday by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

The Act says that every disclosure shall be made in good faith and the person making the disclosure shall provide a personal declaration stating that he reasonably believes that the information disclosed by him and the allegation contained therein is substantially true.

Disclosures can be made in writing or by email or email message in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed and contain full particulars and be accompanied by supporting documents, or other material, the Act states.

However, no action shall be taken on a disclosure if it does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant or if “the identity of the complainant or public servant is found to be incorrect”.

Information related to national security has been kept out of the purview of the Act. The Act is not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, the armed forces and the Special Protection Group mandated to provide security to the Prime Minister and former prime ministers, among others.

Earlier, the CVC was the designated agency to receive complaints from whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer resolution (PIDPI) or whistleblowers’ resolution.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had directed all central government departments to designate a nodal officer in each ministry to look into complaints of corruption received from whistleblowers under PIDPI.