A criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are different and acquittal in one of them does not hold any significance in the other case: Supreme Court

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned petition preferred by the appellant Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation No.13 of wages but with the continuity of service original writ bus collided. The accident resulted in death of four the jeep was completely crushed. The impact of the collision was so high that the jeep was pushed back by The driver of the jeep also sustained injuries. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. On conclusion of enquiry he was dismissed from service. He order of dismissal before the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal. In a revision application the Industrial Tribunal considering the acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings and observing that the drivers of both the vehicles were Act 1971” for short) and held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Before the for the back wages. The Industrial Tribunal directed his reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal ordering reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service the appellant preferred writ petition before the respondent back wages with effect from 01.11.2003 to 31.05.2018 i.e. which is the date of his superannuation Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi learned counsel appearing on that in the facts and circumstances of the case the It is submitted that both the High Court as well as the Industrial Court have not at all considered and or and the High Court have failed to appreciate that the acquittal has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary have different objectives. Reliance is placed on the Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 9 SCC 94 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sitaram Mishra & Anr. 20 SCC the rescue of the respondent as the acquittal in the criminal case is on the failure of the prosecution to examine investigating officer panch for spot panchnama that on the other hand in the departmental proceedings persons died due to the negligence on the part of the times earlier it cannot be said that the punishment of would not fall under item No.1(g) of Schedule­IV of the It is further submitted that even the Industrial Court specifically observed in the order that the misconduct is not of a minor or technical character. It is further submitted that the Industrial Court also observed that there is no victimization and the action of the MSRTC also observed that the MSRTC has neither falsely implicated the complainant respondent nor has it dismissed the respondent for patently false reasons and therefore respondent failed to prove the alleged unfair with the order of punishment dismissal imposed by the that he was gainfully employed after his dismissal the respondent back wages with effect from 1st November 2003 to 31st May 2018 could not have been passed in a petition filed by the appellant MSRTC. It is submitted Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the the respondent has supported the judgment and order case when the Industrial Court found the order of dismissal disproportionate to the misconduct proved the item No. 1(g) of Schedule­IV of the MRTU & PULP Act side of the road and the respondent tried to avoid the the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court ordering reinstatement without back wages but with interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court ordering reinstatement without back At the outset it is required to be noted that in the departmental proceedings the misconduct alleged against the respondent driver of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which the accident occurred in which four persons died has been proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dismissing the respondent workman from service. The by giving cogent reasons and after re­appreciating the passed by the criminal court. However the Industrial by the disciplinary authority on the misconduct proved that punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the 10.1 Therefore the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and the same was disproportionate to the misconduct proved and therefore the Industrial Court was justified in interfering with the order of dismissal and ordering was driving the vehicle it met with an accident with the 25 feet. From the aforesaid facts it can be said that the great speed and rashly due to which the accident had under Sections 279 and 304(a) of IPC Criminal Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the was also negligent it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. That does not mean that the 10.3 Much stress has been given by the Industrial Court on the agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondent workman that as he was acquitted by the court it appears that the criminal court acquitted the respondent based on the hostility of the witnesses the evidence led by the interested witnesses lacuna in panchnama of the incident etc. Therefore criminal court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case accident and due to which four persons died has been Industrial Court has erred in giving much stress on the acquittal of the respondent by the criminal court. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that the Industrial disciplinary authority holding charge and misconduct proved in the departmental enquiry and has interfered 10.5 Now so far as the order passed by the Industrial Court ordering reinstatement with continuity of service by invoking clause No.1(g) of Schedule­IV of the MRTU PULP Act 1971 is concerned as per clause No. 1(g) only in having any regard to the nature of the particular so as to amount to a shockingly disproportionate punishment. Clause No.1 of Schedule­IV of the MRTU a) by way of victimisation b) not in good faith but in the colourable exercise in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or for misconduct of a minor or technical character without having any regard to the record of service of the employee so as to amount to a shockingly disproportionate PULP Act 1971 to the present case it cannot be said that the dismissal of the respondent was for misconduct of a has been held to be guilty for a particular charge and Court. As per case of the appellant MSRTC the during three years’ service tenure he was punished four times. Therefore it cannot be said that the order of circumstances of the case the Industrial Court wrongly Even otherwise in the facts of the case when in the departmental enquiry it has been specifically found that died when the punishment of dismissal is imposed it cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate has been considered. At the cost of repetition it is observed findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the departmental proceedings. Therefore in the facts and grave error and has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority which was not interfered by the It is also required to be noted that before the Industrial Court the respondent workman driver admitted that passed by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent. Therefore even otherwise the directions issued quashed and set aside and the judgment and Award order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent workman from service is hereby upheld. The present appeal is allowed to the

Summary: An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings. The same was observed by the Supreme Court, by Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation V. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, [CIVIL APPEAL NO.7403 OF 2021].  The facts of the case are that the respondent in the present case was a driver who was playing a passenger bus and on 23.10.1992 and during his journey he got into an accident with a jeep coming from front direction. The bus driver took an extreme right contrary to the traffic rules that resulted in the crash causing multiple fatalities and injuries to persons. The respondent was hence subjected to disciplinary enquiry and upon the conclusion if it he was dismissed from the service, further he was also prosecuted under section 279 of IPC however he was acquitted as it was a case of contributory negligence. The labor court held that the acquittal on the criminal case will not aid the employee in the matter as they are different proceedings over the same subjects but with different factors and proofs that need to be taken into consideration. This matter was taken to Supreme court where Justice Shah observed that “therefore, at the best even if it is assumed that even driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence.” To be fair even though the Supreme Court is a court of law and not a court of facts and evidences there is certainly a possibility of error, the fact that the case from the year 1992 there is a possibility of errors. “Errors” not in recording of judgements but application of law because “disciplinary proceeding” has a very wide scope and the time gap that existed in the case for dismissal of disciplinary proceedings also further open the scope of alteration of facts due to human memory’s limitation. Further an interesting distinction bas been made by the supreme court between evidences in a criminal trial and the evidences in a disciplinary proceeding however that observation is only specific to this case or any other cases dealing with the offence of “negligence”. Negligence is something that is punishable as per the law and it is something based on which disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a person but when there is a negligence from both the sides as it was later on observed in this case it changes the liability. A person can be negligent but he can be given a defence of contributory negligence but after examining this term it has to be seen that contributory negligence does not mean absence of negligence, it is merely a defence from a criminal punishment as per the law but since contributory negligence can only exist when there is some negligence on the part of both the parties it still remains as a valid ground for disciplinary proceedings. Another insight that can be drawn from this case is the charges and hearings conducted by the prosecution are based on witnesses, evidences and factors such as hostility of witnesses also play a crucial role in this and in criminal proceedings the acquittal of the accused is done because of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and failure of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be a ground for setting aside a disciplinary proceeding. click here to read the judgment