Departmental enquiry after acquittal remains permissible, but post-acquittal action must be initiated by the competent departmental head.

A departmental enquiry may follow a criminal acquittal, because the criminal trial and domestic discipline serve different purposes and acquittal does not by itself protect a public servant from service-related scrutiny. The material also states that where the service framework requires the departmental head to consider post-acquittal action, that discretion must be exercised by the proper authority. In the Bombay police context, the Inspector General of Police was identified as the competent departmental head, so initiation of proceedings by the District Superintendent of Police without that consideration was unauthorised and invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a departmental enquiry could be instituted against a police constable after his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. (ii) Whether the Inspector General of Police, and not the District Superintendent of Police, was the competent departmental head required to apply his mind before departmental proceedings were commenced after acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether a departmental enquiry could be instituted against a police constable after his acquittal in the criminal proceedings.

Analysis: An acquittal in criminal proceedings was held not to bar departmental action intended to determine whether a delinquent should be retained in public service. Criminal trial and domestic enquiry were treated as distinct in nature and purpose, and the latter was not regarded as a second punishment for the same misconduct. The earlier acquittal, including one resulting from grant of C summary, did not by itself prevent disciplinary examination of fitness for service.

Conclusion: Yes. A departmental enquiry could validly be held after the acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Inspector General of Police, and not the District Superintendent of Police, was the competent departmental head required to apply his mind before departmental proceedings were commenced after acquittal.

Analysis: The definition of heads of departments under the Bombay Civil Service Rules, read with Appendix II, identified the Inspector General of Police as the head of the police department for the State, while the Commissioner of Police was the head only for Greater Bombay. The Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Bombay Police Manual treated the Inspector General as the authority responsible for the direction, supervision, discipline, and retention of police personnel. Under paragraph 445 of the Manual, the decision whether to commence departmental action after judicial proceedings ended in acquittal had to be taken by the departmental head, and the District Superintendent of Police was not shown to be such authority.

Conclusion: The Inspector General of Police was the competent departmental head, and initiation by the District Superintendent of Police without the Inspector General's consideration was unauthorised.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the departmental challenge was upheld because the enquiry could follow acquittal, but the initiation of proceedings by an incompetent authority rendered the disciplinary action invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: After an acquittal, departmental proceedings may still be taken to assess suitability for public service, but where the governing service rules vest that decision in the departmental head, action initiated without that authority's consideration is without competence and invalid.

---