SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD versus INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD versus INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

Acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the appellant from liability in departmental proceedings, particularly since the charges and evidence in both proceedings were different and departmental findings were independently arrived at in compliance with principles of natural justice. The High Court correctly refused interference under its limited review jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Shashi Bhusan Prasad; Respondents: Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Departmental Inquiry, Dismissal, Disciplinary Proceedings, Effect of Criminal Acquittal, Principles of Natural Justice, Scope of High Court Review
Service Law Departmental Inquiry Dismissal Disciplinary Proceedings Effect of Criminal Acquittal Principles of Natural Justice Scope of High Court Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shashi Bhusan Prasad

Appellant

Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings absolves liability in departmental disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there was error in disciplinary procedure under CISF Rules
  3. 3 Whether High Court could interfere with disciplinary proceedings under limited scope of review

Ratio Decidendi

Acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the appellant from liability in departmental proceedings, particularly since the charges and evidence in both proceedings were different and departmental findings were independently arrived at in compliance with principles of natural justice. The High Court correctly refused interference under its limited review jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs
  • Pending applications disposed of