DOMESTIC ENQUIRY AND A CRIMINAL TRIAL
Q. What is the distinction between a Domestic Enquiry and a Criminal Trial?
Ans. The two proceedings are entirely different in nature and apart in different fields with different objectives. Besides, consequent upon a domestic enquiry the man may lose his job. But a conviction in the criminal trial may carry an indelible stigma of his life with possible far-reaching other consequences. The materials or evidence adduced in a domestic enquiry may or may not be the same as those adduced in a criminal trial. It is well-settled law that in departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.1 The Supreme Court has held that the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender whereas the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with Service Rules besides that in a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence, as such, strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings besides that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency.2 The Andhra Pradesh High Court has also held that the standard of proof in the enquiry proceedings in criminal trial is totally different as an accused in the criminal trial is entitled to benefit of doubt and it is not so in the domestic enquiry. The Supreme Court has held that an advocate of company can be an enquiry officer and no bias can be presumed.4
There is a marked distinction between the criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings.5
It is settled law that in departmental inquiry the requirement of proof is not to the extent of “proof beyond doubt” but it is in the realm of preponderance of probability, which is considered sufficient for imposition of appropriate penalty.6 Nature and scope of departmental enquiry vis-à-vis criminal proceedings are different as the standard of proof required in criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt whereas departmental enquiry depends upon the preponderance of probabilities and an order of acquittal cannot conclude and effect the departmental proceedings and the delinquent employee is not automatically entitled to get any relief on the basis of his/her acquittal from the punishment imposed upon him/her through departmental enquiry.7 In disciplinary proceedings, the charges are to be proved on preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.8
Acquittal in criminal case would not affect adversely the finding in domestic enquiry as the standard of proof is different in criminal case and domestic enquiry.9 Departmental proceedings vis-à-vis criminal proceedings need different mode of proofs i.e., in criminal case, the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the departmental proceedings are governed by civil law i.e., onus of proof is discharged on preponderance of probabilities.10
References:
1. Suresh Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2005 LLR 1005 (Ker HC).
2. Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia, 2005 LLR 1137 (SC): 2005 AIR SCW 4986: AIR 2005 SC 4217.
3. S. Pakeer Saheb v. Nagarjune Grameena Bank, Khammam District, 2006 LLR 531 (AP HC).
4. Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2009 LLR 1057 (SC): AIR 2010 SC 142: 2009 AIR SCW 5779.
5. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, 2010 LLR 109 (SN) (SC): AIR 2010 SC 75: 2009 AIR SCW 5596.
6. Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohammed Adambhai Mushabhai Bhodiya, 2012 LLR 43 (Guj HC).
7. Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. v. M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012 LLR 8 (SC).
8. State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, 2013 LLR 211 (SC).
9. Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., rep. by its Special Officer, No.1, Beach Road, Cuddalore – 607001 v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, 2013 LLR (SN) 1118: 2013 (3) LLN 748 (Mad HC).
10. Y.S. Kapoor v. Central Bank of India, 2013 LLR 1017: 2013 (2) LIC 2007 (Del HC).
