Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram

3. We are in this case concerned with a situation where a member of the law enforcement agency, a police personnel, himself was caught in the act of eve-teasing of a married woman leading to criminal and disciplinary proceeding, ending in his dismissal from service, the legality of which is the subject matter of this appeal.

4. The respondent herein, while he was on duty at the Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai was deputed for Courtallam season Bandobust duty on 9.7.1999 and he reported for duty on that date at 8.30 PM at the Courtallam Season Police out post. At about 11.00 PM he visited the Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and misbehaved and eve-teased a married lady, who was waiting along with her husband, to board a bus. The respondent approached that lady with a dubious intention and threatened both husband and wife stating that he would book a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him. Further, he had disclosed his identity as a police man. Both husband and wife got panic and complained to a police man, namely, Head Constable Adiyodi (No.1368) who was standing along with Head Constable Peter (No.1079) of Tenkasi Police Station on the opposite side of the bus-stand. They were on night duty at the bus stand. They rushed to the spot and took the respondent into custody and brought him to Tenkasi Police Station along with the husband and wife. Following that, a complaint No.625/1999 was registered on 10.7.1999 at that Police Station against the respondent under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act. On 10.7.1999, at about 1.25 hrs., the respondent was taken to the Government Hospital Tenkasi for medical examination. There he was examined by Dr. N. Rajendran, who issued a Certificate of Drunkenness, which reads as follows:

Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that no reliance could be placed on the judgment of the criminal court. The O.A. was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.3.2004. The order was challenged by the respondent in a Writ Petition No.13726 of 2004 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court took the view that if a criminal case and departmental proceedings against an official are based on the same set of facts and evidence and the criminal case ended in an honourable acquittal and not on technical grounds, imposing punishment of removal of the delinquent official from service, based on the findings of domestic enquiry would not be legally sustainable. The High Court also took the view that the version of the doctor who was examined as PW8 and Ext. P-4 certificate issued by him, could not be considered as sufficient material to hold the respondent guilty and that he had consumed alcohol, but was found normal and had no adverse influence of alcohol. The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dismissing him from service. It was further ordered that the respondent be reinstated with continuity of service forthwith, with back wages from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, till payment.

12. We may first deal with the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent.

23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.

25. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

27. Section 294 says that “Whoever, to the annoyance of others- (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song; ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both”.

33. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.