Acquittal In Criminal Case Does Not Bar Departmental Action Under CRPF Rules On Different Charges : J&K HC

Background Facts

The appellant was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was issued a service rifle (SLR) and ammunition to perform his official duties. On 31.05.1992, at around 1700 hours, the appellant allegedly fired a round from his SLR at Assistant Commandant, which hit him on the head, resulting in his death. Therefore, a criminal case under Section 302 RPC was registered against the appellant. After trial, the appellant was acquitted on 10.02.1998 due to failure of the prosecution to prove the misuse of the rifle for committing the offence.

Thereafter, the department dismissed the appellant from service. But the dismissal order was set aside by the High Court on 31.07.2001. Further the High Court granted liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh inquiry. Hence the department initiated a fresh departmental inquiry on 30.12.2002 for misuse of government arms and ammunition. After completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer held him guilty of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Based on the report, the Commandant dismissed the appellant from service on 13.09.2003.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order. The petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 11.08.2023. It was contended by the appellant that the dismissal violated Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Further that he was not given proper legal assistance nor was a Presenting Officer appointed. The Single Judge found no illegality in the inquiry proceedings or the dismissal order.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the intra-court appeal against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Single Judge.

It was submitted by the appellant that the respondents committed an error by passing the dismissal order in violation of Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which expressly prohibits departmental punishment on the same or similar charge after acquittal in a criminal trial. It was further submitted that during the inquiry, the appellant was not permitted to seek legal advice or assistance for cross-examination of witnesses, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to defend himself. It was contended that all witnesses were examined at their residences and the appellant was merely asked to accompany the Enquiry Officer, which undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The appellant also urged that no Presenting Officer was appointed.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that a fresh departmental inquiry was ordered strictly in compliance with the liberty granted by the Court. It was contended that the appellant was charged with serious misconduct for misusing government arms and ammunition which is an offence under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. It was further submitted that Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 was not applicable, as the departmental proceedings were initiated on a distinct charge of indiscipline and misuse of arms, whereas the criminal trial was confined to the offence of murder.

Findings of the Court

It was observed that Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 does not apply, as the criminal trial related to the offence of murder under Section 302 RPC, whereas the departmental proceedings were based on the allegation of misuse of government arms and ammunition, it was a distinct charge of misconduct.

The case of Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It was further held that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

It was held by the Court that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not vitiate the proceedings, as Rule 27(c) of the CRPF Rules does not mandate such appointment in every case. The case of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that appointment of a Presenting Officer in disciplinary inquiries is not mandatory and absence of one does not by itself vitiate the inquiry. Further the Enquiry Officer, who functions like a judge, must not assume the role of prosecutor. He may ask clarificatory questions but should not conduct examination-in-chief, put leading or suggestive questions, or cross-examine defence witnesses. If he does so, it would render the inquiry invalid.

It was found by the court that the appellant was provided with memorandum and articles of charge and was afforded due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to submit his statement of defence, which was submitted by him. It was held by the Court that the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules. There was no illegality or impropriety in the dismissal order dated 13.09.2003, nor in the judgment of the Writ Court dismissing the writ petition.

With the aforesaid observations, the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Case Name : Gautam Ray vs Union of India and others

Case No. : LPA No.189/2023

Counsel for the Petitioner : Rakesh Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Vishal Sharma, DSGI