'Unfair and oppressive': Supreme Court reinstates constable dismissed for altering date of birth

The Supreme Court has ordered the reinstatement of a constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary who was dismissed for allegedly changing his date of birth. Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has ordered reinstating a constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 9th Battalion, Jodhpur, dismissed for altering his date of birth, saying that the court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings after completely examining the judgment of acquittal and the court can't get influenced by the use of terminology like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan said: “We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same”.

The bench said this is a case wherein the exercise of "our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair, and oppressive”.

Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench, said that if the charges in the departmental inquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.

“If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances," said Justice Viswanathan, in the judgment delivered on December 4.

The bench said expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honourably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations and a court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Ram Lal who was dismissed from the post of constable for allegedly altering his date of birth from April 21, 1974 to April 21, 1972 to project himself as having attained majority to apply for recruitment. The apex court said that the original 8th standard mark sheet recorded the appellant's date of birth as April 21, 1972, and there is no correction or manipulation in that document, so the appellant cannot be penalised.

The bench said that the reading of the entire judgment clearly indicated that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings after full consideration of the prosecution evidence “and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used”.

The apex court ordered Lal’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits, along with 50% of the back wages.

The apex court said the disciplinary authority has merely reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. “Equally so are the findings of the appellate authority. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere…..We are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserve to be quashed”, said the apex court.