In a landmark decision, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that disciplinary proceedings cannot supersede a criminal court’s acquittal when both are based on identical charges. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, quashed the dismissal of Subal Makhal, a former employee of the Indian Red Cross Society, who was removed from service despite being acquitted in a related criminal case.
Background of the Case
Subal Makhal, employed as a labourer (Group D) with the Indian Red Cross Society since 1979, faced serious allegations in 1994, when a senior official accused him of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the accusation, Makhal was suspended, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Society in 1995. A chargesheet was issued, and in 2008, he was dismissed from his position.
However, in a parallel criminal proceeding, the court acquitted Makhal in 2013, finding him not guilty due to a lack of evidence. Following this acquittal, Makhal requested a review of his dismissal, arguing that both the disciplinary and criminal charges were based on the same facts and evidence. When his request was rejected in 2016, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his petition in 2023. This led to the current writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The central legal question addressed by the High Court was whether an acquittal in a criminal court could negate the findings of a disciplinary authority when both proceedings are based on identical charges, evidence, and circumstances. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, argued that the dismissal should be reconsidered, as the charges and evidence in both proceedings were essentially the same. He contended that the criminal court’s acquittal invalidated the disciplinary action.
Conversely, the respondents, represented by Mr. Sudip Krishna Datta, argued that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings were distinct from those in the criminal trial, and an acquittal in the latter did not automatically nullify findings of misconduct in the former.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Bench ruled in favour of Makhal, stating that the charges in both proceedings were nearly identical and that the acquittal in the criminal case could not be overlooked by the disciplinary authority. The Court emphasized that “disciplinary proceedings cannot override an acquittal in a criminal case when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances are identical.”
The judgment underscored that “mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries,” highlighting that the principles of natural justice demand that an acquittal in criminal proceedings should influence the outcome of disciplinary actions when both are based on the same set of facts.
Justice Chakraborty, writing for the Bench, observed, “The findings in the disciplinary proceedings were contradicted by the findings of the criminal court. The criminal court thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s removal from service was unwarranted.”
The Court further noted that all key witnesses and evidence in the disciplinary inquiry were also part of the criminal trial, where Makhal was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution’s case. It concluded that since the prosecution “miserably failed to establish the charges,” the disciplinary proceedings could not stand on their own.
Judgment and Directives
The Court set aside the order of removal dated July 22, 2008, and the subsequent rejection of Makhal’s review petition on September 2, 2016. It directed the Indian Red Cross Society to impose a lesser penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale for two years, without cumulative effect. Makhal is to be reinstated with continuity of service from the date of his removal.
Additionally, the Court ordered the Indian Red Cross Society to pay 50% of Makhal’s back wages, along with all consequential benefits, within eight weeks from the communication of this order.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Subal Makhal v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.
– Case Number: WPCT 225 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Sudip Krishna Datta
– Original Application (OA) Number: OA 511 of 2017
– Criminal Case Number: B.D.N. (E) B Case No. 100/3/8/1994; Special Case No. 81 of 1995
– Relevant Legislation: Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
