Acquittal By Criminal Court Does Not Debar Employer From Exercising Power In Departmental Proceedings: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court reiterated that an acquittal of an employee by the Criminal Court does not debar the employer from exercising power in the departmental proceedings.

The Court was deciding two writ petitions preferred by a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 against one of its employees and the other by the said employee against the co-operative society.

A Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2005) in which the Court with reference to the degree of proof required for a conviction under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the degree of proof required in the departmental enquiry, had laid down some principles.

In the aforesaid case, it was held, “As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.”

Senior Advocate P. Ravindran and Advocate Sreedhar Ravindran represented the petitioner while Advocate K. Mohanakannan represented the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The respondent (employee) entered the service of the petitioner (co-operative society) in 1989 under a quota reserved for employees of the Member Societies by producing a certificate from the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank, which had a membership with the petitioner. Later, some enquiries were carried out by the petitioner which revealed that the respondent never worked with the said Bank. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Palakkad also made enquiries wherein the same conclusion was arrived at. Hence, the petitioner issued a charge memo, directing the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings may not be initiated against him based on a forged certificate produced by him for obtaining employment.

Thereafter, the petitioner terminated the respondent’s services. An appeal was filed against such termination but the same was rejected. A criminal case was also registered against the respondent which resulted in his conviction. This order of conviction was challenged before the High Court and the respondent was acquitted. Thereafter, the respondent submitted an application before the petitioner, seeking reinstatement of service but such request was rejected. Resultantly, he approached the Kerala Co-Operative Arbitration Court and an award was issued holding that the respondent was entitled to get reinstatement in the service. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the award along with an application for condonation of delay but the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, the petitioner was before the High Court.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Such being the position, the 1st respondent may not take refuge under Ext.P6 for reopening his stale claim by presenting Ext.P7 application before the petitioner on 25.07.2011, solely on the basis of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court. It is also to be noticed that even Ext.P6 was rendered as early as on 06.11.2006. The 1st respondent had filed Ext.P7 seeking reinstatement before the petitioner only on 25.07.2011.”

The Court added that, delay and laches are also writ large on the face of the application, even assuming for a moment that the High Court’s judgment can be pressed into service by the respondent.

The Court further noted that the award declaring that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement in the service with benefits including back wages is without any justification and arbitrary in nature.

“The prayers made by the petitioner in WP(C) No.25184 of 2019 do not require any consideration, in view of the above finding. … However, the submissions made by the learned counsel Sri.Mohanakannan that his client had admittedly worked from 1984 to 1989 with the petitioner, that he is an aged person having various ailments and therefore, requires sympathetic treatment is to be considered”, it also said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned awards.

Cause Title- Palakkad District Co-Operative Bank Managing Committee v. Raghavan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:76324)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Advocates Sreedhar Ravindran, Aparna Rajan, and Liza Meghan Cyriac.

Respondents: Advocates K. Mohanakannan, H. Praveen, and Sony K.B.

Click here to read/download the Judgment