Supreme Court: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Stand If Charges Are Same As Criminal Case And Employee Acquitted On Merits
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that disciplinary proceedings against a government employee cannot be sustained when the charges, evidence, and witnesses mirror those in a criminal case—and the employee has been acquitted on merits.
The Court made this observation while allowing the appeal of Maharana Pratap Singh, a former constable of the Bihar CID, who was dismissed from service after departmental proceedings were initiated against him based on the same allegations for which he had been acquitted by a criminal court.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Patna High Court Division Bench’s ruling, restoring to a limited extent the findings of the Single Judge. The Supreme Court found that the departmental proceedings were vitiated by serious procedural irregularities, including denial of Singh’s right to cross-examine key witnesses and vague framing of charges. However, considering the long passage of time, the Court declined to order reinstatement and instead awarded Singh a lump sum compensation of ?30 lakh along with ?5 lakh as costs.
Background
Maharana Pratap Singh had joined the Bihar CID as a constable in 1973. His troubles began in 1988 when he was arrested on allegations of extortion and impersonation. Following his suspension, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 1989, culminating in his dismissal from service in 1996 after an internal inquiry found him guilty on four charges.
Meanwhile, Singh was also convicted by a trial court under Sections 384 and 411 of the IPC. However, this conviction was overturned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in 1996, who acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to establish its case.
Despite his acquittal, Singh’s departmental appeals and revisions were rejected, prompting him to seek relief from the High Court.
High Court Proceedings
The Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashed Singh’s dismissal, emphasizing that once the criminal court had acquitted him and the prosecution witnesses failed to support the charges, the disciplinary authority could not sustain its findings without fresh, independent proof. The Judge also found that the inquiry was tainted by procedural lapses, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sawal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the Single Judge had exceeded writ jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and acting as an appellate authority.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Division Bench. It held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from fundamental flaws:
Vague Charges: The charges were indefinite and lacked material details, violating Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.
Suppression of Records: The State failed to produce the departmental file despite specific directions, leading the Court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.
Denial of Cross-Examination: Singh was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine a key witness (PW-1), while another witness (PW-2) refused to identify Singh during both the inquiry and the criminal trial.
Referring to previous precedents, including G.M. Tank and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that when disciplinary and criminal proceedings are based on identical facts, sustaining the departmental punishment despite acquittal would be unjust and oppressive.
Conclusion
Recognizing that Singh was around 45 years old when he was dismissed and would now be nearly 74, the Supreme Court held that reinstatement was not a practical remedy. Instead, it awarded him ?30 lakh as full and final settlement, inclusive of all service and retiral benefits, along with ?5 lakh as costs. The State was directed to pay the amount within three months.
Case Citation: Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 9818/2017).
