To make it clear, please note, my comments are based on the views of one Mr. Dhingra, as expressed by him in some thread on "reinstatement after acquittal." Since I was in full agreement with the views expressed by Mr. Dhingra, the comments were made not to take any credit for my self, but to make the readers aware of the factual position about the suspension and reinstatement, so that they may not get misled by partial truth of the article. Even otherwise also, judgment on any particular case cannot become an ideal precedent for one and all the cases of suspension or dismissal. One should not forget, reinstatement of a suspended, dismissed, terminated or removed employee from service depends solely upon on merits of the case, itself, not on the merits of some other's case.
Apparently a copy pasted article, but can impart some knowledge to some people to some extent, as the article, seems to deal with only one aspect of criminal trial, not linked with the departmental disciplinary rules, along with criminal trial.<BR><BR>
So, if departmental inquiry is also conducted side by side the criminal case, the fact should not be ignored that unless the accused employee is cleared from the departmental disciplinary case, his claim for reinstatement in service would remain doubtful. However, if placed on deemed suspension merely on account of his police/ judicial custody and prosecution in criminal case, he will have the need to convince the departmental authorities that the deemed suspension is required to be revoked on his being acquitted from the criminal case by the court. But, if suspended on account of departmental disciplinary inquiry case, he can expect revocation from suspension or reinstatement in service only after he gets exonerated from the departmental inquiry case.<BR><BR>
So, the accused employee would have the need to cautiously plan, how to proceed by making a review of both the cases in totality not to get mixed up, so as to assure that both of the cases get dealing duly delinked from one another by his organization.<BR><BR>
In fact, the employees as well as the lawyers try to make a wrong mix up of both the cases, while both should be dealt with separately, one under the criminal laws and the other under the departmental conduct and discipline rules. Even if the accused goes to the court again with the hope to get order on reinstatement, there is sufficient in-built cushion in the provisions of the departmental rules for the departmental authorities to use their discretion in such matters and can scuttle down his plea even in the court of law, if the case is mishandled by ignoring provisions of the departmental rules.<BR><BR>
Acquittal once done on any ground exonerates the accused, accusations die a natural death, is always just Acquittal only. There can never be any adjective like honorable or dis honorable as such once findings of the trial court says 'acquitted', so, i do not subscribe to the idea of any adjectives, once acquitted he is just acquitted. that is all, i agree in toto with Joginder singh issue. tks
One can only lament that "judicial activism" has gone to such an extreme extent as to convert "acquittal on technical grounds" within the ambit of "honorable acquittal", obviously, in disregard of settled precedents ! Entry of offenders into sensitive services like security, police, military,etc., would be against public interest.
You need to be
logged in to post comment
You can also submit your article by sending to email@example.com
view more »
Our Network Sites
Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.