An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on disciplinary proceedings: Supreme Court of India.
As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. This was observed by Hon’ble M. R. Shah, J in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay- [Civil Appeal No. 7403 of 2021]. Brief facts of the case are, the respondent was a driver and plied passenger buses. Once while driving, the bus met with an accident with a jeep coming from the opposite direction. It appears that instead of taking the bus to the left side, the driver took the bus to the extreme right which was the wrong side and as a result, the jeep and the bus collided. The accident resulted in death of four passengers and six were seriously injured. The impact of the collision was so high that the jeep was pushed back by about 25 feet and it was completely damaged. The bumper of the bus was also crushed. The driver of the jeep also sustained injuries. In view of this, the respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. On conclusion of enquiry, he was dismissed from service and was prosecuted for offence under Section 279 of IPC. However, he came to be acquitted. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal. In a revision application the Industrial Tribunal considered acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings and observing that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent (contributory negligence), the Industrial Tribunal exercised powers under item No.1(g) of Schedule­ IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU” and “PULP Act, 1971” for short), and held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of Service. Feeling dissatisfied with this order, the appellant preferred writ petition before the High Court. The High Court not only dismissed the petition, but also directed appellant to pay back wages and also directed that the respondent will be entitled to retiral benefits on the basis of continuity of service with effect from date of his dismissal and till his superannuation. Feeling dissatisfied with this, the MSRTC has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant– MSRTC has vehemently submitted that that both, the High Court as well as the Industrial Court have not considered and/or appreciated the difference between the disciplinary enquiry and the criminal proceedings and they have failed to appreciate that the acquittal has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and have different objectives. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case would not fall under item No.1(g) of Schedule­ IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 since there is no victimization and the action of the MSRTC cannot be said to be not in good faith and the MSRTC has neither falsely implicated the complainant– respondent nor has it dismissed the respondent for patently false reasons and therefore respondent failed toprove the alleged unfair labour practice as per the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has supported the order passed by the Industrial Court and confirmed by the High Court. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the Industrial Court found the order of dismissal disproportionate to the misconduct proved, the same can be said to be an unfair labour practice as per item No. 1(g) of Schedule­ IV of the MRTU &amp; PULP Act, 1971. Thus, the Industrial Court rightly interfered with the order of dismissal and the same is rightly confirmed by the High Court. It is submitted that the criminal court found that the jeep driver was negligent and considering the fact the criminal court acquitted the respondent– driver, the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, ordering  reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service does not warrant any interference. Supreme court after perusing the facts and arguments presented, held that – “The short question posed for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal can be said to be unfair labour practice on the ground that it was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. As per the cardinal principle of law an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. Therefore, the Industrial Court has erred in giving much stress on the acquittal of the respondent by the criminal court. In the departmental proceedings every aspect has been considered. Hence, the Industrial Court committed a 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 Labour Court. Even the directions issued by the High Court directing the appellant to pay wages to the respondent – workman could not have been passed by the High Court since the petition was not filed by the workman –respondent.” Click here to view Judgement
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