In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal of Constable Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, highlighting that the disciplinary proceedings against him were not conducted in alignment with his honourable acquittal in the criminal case. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that departmental punishments are proportionate to the alleged misconduct, and underscored that the findings of criminal courts should impact departmental proceedings, especially when the allegations and evidence overlap.
Background of the Case:
The case, numbered Special Appeal No. 601 of 2024, involved Constable Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, who was accused of misconduct related to an incident involving alleged illicit relations with a woman at his residence. The incident was reported by Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) of Sant Kabir Nagar on 23.09.2008. This led to Pandey’s arrest and suspension, followed by a departmental inquiry. Despite his acquittal in the criminal case for lack of evidence, the departmental inquiry resulted in his dismissal on 10.05.2009.
The division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar, delivered the judgment on 26.09.2024, reversing the dismissal order dated 19.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 40893 of 2010. The appeal was argued by Shri Umesh Vats, assisted by Shri Balwant Singh for the appellant, while the state was represented by Shri Ratan Deep Mishra and Shri Piyush Shukla.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Validity of the Departmental Proceedings Post-Criminal Acquittal:
The court examined whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service, despite his acquittal in the criminal case, was justified. It concluded that the departmental proceedings were flawed as they did not properly account for the petitioner’s acquittal.
2. Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Departmental Proceedings:
The court held that when a police officer has been honourably acquitted in a criminal case, departmental proceedings should not ignore the findings of the criminal court, especially if the allegations and evidence are identical in both proceedings.
3. Proportionality of Punishment:
The court scrutinized whether the punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the alleged misconduct of two days’ unauthorized absence and alleged involvement in an incident at his private residence. The court found the punishment to be disproportionately harsh.
Important Observations by the Court:
The Court observed that “the punishment should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias.” The bench emphasized that “irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review” and that departmental actions should not be inconsistent with the acquittal in a criminal trial.
Referring to the precedent in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2386), the bench reiterated that the disciplinary authority’s decisions should align with the principle of proportionality, ensuring that the punishment suits both the offence and the offender.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court concluded that the departmental dismissal order was untenable as it was based primarily on the unsubstantiated testimony of a single witness, whose statements in the criminal and departmental proceedings were inconsistent. Moreover, the acquittal in the criminal case indicated that the allegations could not be proven beyond doubt. The Court ordered the reinstatement of Constable Awadhesh Kumar Pandey and directed the concerned authorities to reconsider his case in light of the principles laid out in the judgment.
Case Details:
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 601 of 2024
Appellant: Constable No. 118 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey
Respondents: State of U.P. and three others
Counsel for Appellant: Shri Umesh Vats, assisted by Shri Balwant Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Shri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel along with Shri Piyush Shukla
