Departmental dismissal by an incompetent authority was quashed, and criminal acquittal did not bar disciplinary proceedings.

A departmental dismissal was quashed where the punishment was imposed by a Superintendent although the officer had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General, because the service rules and Article 311(1) required dismissal by the authority competent to appoint. The disciplinary scheme was treated as quasi-judicial, with safeguards such as inquiry, defence, records, and appeal. The earlier criminal acquittal did not bar the departmental proceedings, because Article 20(2) applies to prosecution before a court or legal tribunal and not to departmental action, and the police regulations expressly permitted discipline despite acquittal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental dismissal was without jurisdiction because it was made by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority; (ii) whether the departmental proceedings were barred by the earlier criminal acquittal under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental dismissal was without jurisdiction because it was made by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority?

Analysis: The service rules and the police regulations showed that dismissal had to be ordered by the authority competent to appoint the officer. The petitioner had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General, while the dismissal was made by a Superintendent. The disciplinary framework also contained procedural safeguards, including opportunity to defend, inquiry, records, and appeal, indicating a quasi-judicial character. In that setting, a dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority was contrary to the applicable rules and to Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The dismissal was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the departmental proceedings were barred by the earlier criminal acquittal under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India?

Analysis: Article 20(2) was held to apply to prosecution in judicial proceedings before a court or legal tribunal and not to departmental or disciplinary proceedings. The police regulations also expressly provided that discharge or acquittal in a criminal court would not bar departmental punishment for the same cause or matter.

Conclusion: The departmental proceedings were not barred by the criminal acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the dismissal order was made by an incompetent authority, and the order was quashed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental dismissal is vulnerable to certiorari where it is imposed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, and Article 20(2) does not bar disciplinary proceedings following a criminal acquittal.

---