Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has recently determined that being acquitted in a related criminal proceeding does not necessarily lead to a favorable outcome in ongoing disciplinary proceedings against an employee in the case of State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga.

What is the Background of the State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga Case?

• The respondent (P. Zadenga) was employed in the State Bank of India as Assistant, Aizwal, Manipur.
• A complaint was lodged by three government retailers with the Aizawl Police Station that their challan deposits with the said Branch had not been entered into the cash receipt scroll.
  • District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl West, also lodged a complaint that a certain retailer had taken the delivery of particular food stuff using a fake challan.
• Pursuant to the above, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent:
  • A Memorandum was issued to him in 1999, wherein it was alleged that he had received Rs.61,908 (in 1996) in respect of which a challan was issued, but the amount was never deposited in the respective account.
  • Two other similar occurrences (in 1995) regarding the amount of Rs.24,640 and Rs.27,412 were also alleged.
  • Three different First Information Report (FIR) stood registered against him under which he was arrested but later released on bail.
  • The delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending against him.
• The High Court (HC) was tasked with answering whether there is a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected to them is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin.
• The Division Bench of the HC held that disciplinary proceedings must be set aside.
• The present appeal was thus filed in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings would not warrant an automatic stay of disciplinary proceedings, especially if they had been initiated after the prescribed in terms of service in this case one-year period.
• It was also highlighted by the SC that an acquittal in criminal proceedings did not automatically result in a corresponding discharge in disciplinary proceedings.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict" are legal concepts that pertain to double jeopardy, an important principle in criminal law.
  • Autrefois Acquit: This is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from being tried again for the same offence after they have been acquitted (found not guilty) of that offence in a previous trial.
  • Autrefois Convict: This doctrine is similar to Autrefois Acquit but applies to a situation where a person has already been convicted of a particular crime. Once a person has been convicted and has served their sentence for a specific offence, they cannot be tried again for that same offense based on the same set of facts.
• The above are enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences - (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
  • Section 300 - Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. —

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.

Disciplinary Proceedings:

• Disciplinary proceedings are a separate legal process that typically occurs within an organizational or institutional context.
• They address alleged misconduct or violations of rules, regulations, or codes of conduct by individuals who are subject to the authority of the organization or institution.
  • For Example - It includes employment-related matters like employee misconduct, student conduct hearings at educational institutions, and professional misconduct cases involving licensed professionals.
• Unlike court cases, disciplinary proceedings do not result in criminal convictions or civil judgments, but they can lead to consequences such as warnings, suspensions, terminations, or academic sanctions.