Holding

Clause 17(5) is directory in appropriate situations, non‑compliance does not per se invalidate dismissal for grave misconduct, and an acquittal in criminal court does not automatically overturn disciplinary punishment; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Management, Pandiya Roadways Corp. Ltd., dismissed its class‑IV employee N. Balakrishnan for alleged theft after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty. The Labour Court refused to approve the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act because the employer had not complied with Clause 17(5) of its Certified Standing Orders, which requires consideration of the employee’s past record. While the criminal court later acquitted the employee, the employer sought to enforce the dismissal and filed a writ petition, which was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that Clause 17(5), though worded with "shall", can be treated as directory in appropriate circumstances and non‑compliance does not automatically invalidate a dismissal for grave misconduct. It also ruled that an acquittal in criminal proceedings is not determinative of disciplinary punishment, and declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The nature of Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders – whether it is mandatory or directory – and the effect of its non‑compliance on the validity of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b).
The impact of an acquittal in criminal proceedings on the punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 33(2)(b)

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 33(2)(b)Standing Ordersmandatory vs directory provisiondisciplinary dismissalcriminal acquittalArticle 136procedural compliance

Judgment

MANAGEMENT, PANDIY AN ROADWAYS CORP. LID. A
v.
N. BALAKRISHNAN

MAY 15, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) B

Labour Laws:

Misconduct-Disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal
proceedings-Effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings on punishment C

- imposed in the disciplinary proceedings-Two lines of Supreme Court
decisions operating in the field-Discussed.

Dismissal-Charges of theft against workman-Respondent-
Disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings initiated against D
him-Respondent found1guilty in Disciplinary proceedings and dismissed-
Dismissal not approved by Labour Court u/s. 33(2)(b) on ground of non-
compliance of a Certified Standing Order of employer-Corporation-
Respondent was thereafter taken back in service and since then he is
continuing in service-Held: Standing Order in question though imperative
in character, could be deviated from in a given situation-However, there is E
another aspect-Respondent, in the meanwhile had been acquitted in the
criminal proceedings-Further, he is merely a class IV employee and was not
charged with an offence of criminal breach of trust-In the circumstances, no
case made out for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. I 36-
Jndustrial Disputes Act, /947-s.33(2)(b)-Constitution of India-Art. 136.
F
Interpretation of Statutes-Statutory provision may be substantive or
procedural-If it is substantive, requirements laid down in the statute
ordinarily be complied with-However, when provisions contain procedural
matter, substantial compliance thereof would serve the purpose.

Respondent is a Class IV employee in Appellant-corporation. Charges G
of theft were levelled against him p,rsuant to which Disciplinary as well as
criminal proceedings were initiated. In the disciplinary proceedings,
Respondent was found guilty and thereafter dismissed from service.

873 H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A Appellant filed application for approval of the order of dismissal in
terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the approval
was not granted by the Labour Court on the ground that in passing the said
order of dismissal, Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Appellant-corporation was not complied with. Meanwhile, criminal proceedings
initiated against the Respondent ended in his acquittal. Appellant filed writ
B petition which was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Division
Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge. Hence the present
appeal

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
c HELD: I. I. On a plain reading of Clause 17(5) of the Standing Orders
of the Corporation and particularly in view of the fact that the word "shall"
has been used therein,primafacie it would be construed to be imperative in
character. It may, however, be held to be directory in certain situation. While
-
construing a statute of this nature, the context plays an important role.
D Interpretation of a statute would also depend upon the fact situation obtaining
in the case. There are, however, certain exceptions to the said rule.
(Paras 11 and 12) (879-8, C, DJ

1.2. There cannot also be any doubt that ordinarily consequences flowing '!'
from contravention or an imperative character of a statute has to be given
E effect to. A statutory provision may be substantive or procedural. If it is
substantive, the requirements laid down in the statute should ordinarily be
complied with. However, when the provisions contain a procedural matter,
substantial compliance thereof would serve the purpose.
[Para 15) [881-GJ

F 1.3. Applicatio.n of a statute or principle of law may vary from case to
case. Only because the statute is imperative, it may not necessarily lead to a
declaration that the order impugned is a nullity.
[Paras 16 and 171 [882-Al

G 1.4. Ordinarily, although sub-clause (5) of Clause (17) of the Certified
Standing Orders is required to be complied with, the same, would not mean
that in a given situation, there cannot be any deviation therefrom. In a case
where dismissal or re1111>val of service is to be ordinarily followed, e.g. in a
case of grave misconduct like misappropriation, strict enforcement of the rule
may not be insisted upon. While saying so, one is not oblivious of the law that
H an executive agency is ordinarily bound by the standard by which it professes

•
MANAGEMENT,PANDIYANROADWAYSCORP LID" N BALAKRISHNAN 875

its actions to be judged. But where a procedural provision merely embodied A
the principles of natural justice, the question as to whether the principle has
been followed or not, will depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each
case. (Para 19) (882-G; 883-A, BJ

U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr., (20041 8
sec 402; P. T. Rajan v. T.P.M Sahir and Ors.. (2003( 8 sec 498; Ashok Lanka B
and Anr v. Rishi Dixit and Ors., (2005( 5 SCC 598; Harjit Singh & Anr v. The
State ofPunjab & Anr.. (2007) 3 SCALE 553; State Bank of Patiala and Ors
v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364; Ashok Kumar Sankar v. Union ofIndia &
Ors., (2007) 3 SCALE 517; State of Punjab and Ors v. Sukhwinder Singh,
(1999) SCC (L&S) 1234; Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative C
Wholesale Stores Ltd) and Ors v. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangha and
Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 517 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T.
Mane, (2005] 3 SCC 254, referred to.

2.1. However, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost
sight of. Respondent in the meanwhile, has been acquitted. The factum of his D
acquittal bas been taken into consideration by the Division Bench of High
Court, which was considered to be an additional factor. Ordinarily, the question
as to whether acquittal in a criminal case will be conclusive in regard to the
order of punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer in a departmental
proceeding is a matter which will again depend upon the fact situation involved E
in a given case. [Para 211 (883-D-E)

2.2. There are evidently two lines of decisions of this Court operating
in the field. One line of decision show that an honourable acquittal in the
criminal case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of
punishment meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when: (i) the order p
of acquittal has not been passed on the same set of fact or same set of evidence;
(ii) the effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and
disciplinary proceeding bas not been considered; or; where the delinquent
officer was charged with something more than the subject-matter of the
criminal case and/or covered by a decision of the Civil Court.
[Para 22) (883-E, F, G) G

Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., jl999) 3 SCC
679; G.M Tank v. State ofGujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 446; Commissioner
ofPolice, New Delhi v. Narender Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 265; G.M Tank v. State
of Gujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 446; Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank H
,
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A and Ors., (2006) 11 SCALE 204; Noida Enterprises Assn. v. Noida & Ors., "-
(2007) 2 SCALE 131; Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co.
ltd and Ors .. (2006] 4 SCC 713 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v.
Ganesh Dutt Ors .. [1972] 4 SCC 834, referred to

3. The occurrence at hand took place in the year 1985. The application
B under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was filed on 16.06.1986. It was rejected by
an order dated 19.4.1989. Respondent, thereafter, was taken back in service
and he continued in his service. Respondent is merely a class IV employee, it
does not hold any office of confidence. He was not charged with an offence of
criminal breach of trust. (Para 25) (885-B, C]
c 4. It is now well-settled principle of law that this Court shall not exercise
its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, only because it may be
lawful to do so. The case at hand is not a fit case where this Court should
exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
[Para 26] (885-D]
D
Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapa/li Power (P)
Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 540 and Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and
Anr., [2003] 6 SCC 545, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2534 of2007.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 2702/1999.

T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant.

F S. Guru Krishna Kumar, and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.

G 2. Respondent herein was employed as a helper at Kumuli Depot of
Appellant. A criminal complaint was lodged against him for alleged commission
of theft of Rs.37,086.05 on 03.11.1985. A disciplinary proceeding was also
initiated against him. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge both before the
disciplinary authority a~ also the criminal court. In the disciplinary proceeding,
he was, however, found to be guilty of the said charge. He was dismissed
H from services only after a show cause notice was served on him.
MANAGEMENT, PANDIY AN ROADWAYS CORP LTD. v. N. BALAKRISHNAN [S.B SINHA. J. J 877

3. Appellant filed an application for approval of the said order of A
removal purported to be in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). Approval sought for was not granted on the.•
premise that in passing the said order of termination, Clause 17(5) of the
Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, which required the management
to take into account the past record before passing the order of dismissal, was
not complied with. B
4. During pendency of the said proceedings before the Tribunal,
admittedly the Criminal Court held the respondent not guilty of commission
of the charge of removal of the said amount ofRs. 37,086.05. He was, therefore,
acquitted.
c
5. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant questioning the said Order
of the Labour Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 1485/1990. A
learned Single Judge of the said Court allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved
by and dissatisfied therewith, Respondent preferred an appeal before a Division
Bench of the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said D
appeal has been allowed holding :

"14. Unfortunately, the learned Judge while accepting the case of
Management, committed two errors. The first one is that he proceeded
that the charge leveled against the workman relates to misappropriation.
It is not in dispute that based on the complaint of the Management, E
prosecution was launched against the workmen for the offence of
theft, which also ended in acquittal in C.C. No. 75 of 1986 on the file
ofJudicial Magistrate, Uthamapalyam dated 14.10.1987. Secondly, the
learned Judge committed an error in holding that when an employee
is involved in the case of misappropriation of funds, no lesser F
punishment than the dismissal from service can be imposed. However,
according to the learned Judge when a major punishment is to be
imposed depending upon the nature or gravity of the offence, then
the factors mentioned in clause 17(5) of the Standing Orders have
some relevance."
G
6. Appellant is, thus, before us.

7. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
~ appellant, would submit that Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders of
the Corporation cannot be held to be imperative in character. According to
the learned counsel, in a case of misconduct involving criminal breach of H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A trust, the employer would be justified in imposing a punishment of termination
of services and in that view of the matter, question of looking into the past
conduct of the employee would not arise.

8. It was contended that past conduct of an employee would be taken
into consideration, only in the event the misconduct proved is not a grave
B one. In a matter involving commission of grave misconduct on the part of the
workman, it was contended, there is no place for generosity or sympathy and
the case has to be dealt with firmly. Reliance, in this behalf, has been placed
on Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores
ltd.) and Ors v. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara Sangha and Ors., [2000] 7
C SCC 517 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane, [2005]
3 sec 254.

9. The learned counsel argued that it was not a case where the High
Court could have taken into consideration the question as to whether the
punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct
D proved. It was urged that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in considering
the petition under Section 33(2)(b) Act being limited; it could not reappraise
the evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceeding. Even acquittal in a
criminal proceeding Mr. Harish Kumar submitted, could not have any effect
in a domestic enquiry, in view of the fact that the standard of proof in criminal
proceeding and domestic enquiry is entirely different. Strong reliance, in this
E behalf, has been placed on South Bengal State Transport Corporation v.
Sapan Kumar Mitra and Ors., [2006] 2 SCC 584 and N. Selvaraj v.
Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd. and Anr., [2006] 9 sec 172.

10. Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
F the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that it is not a case where
this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India. It was contended that clause 17(5) of the Certified
Standing Orders was clearly applicable and the conditions laid down therein
must be considered before imposition of punishment keeping in view its
cumulative effect. The leal'!led counsel would contend that clause 17(5) of the
G Certified Standing Orders is mandatory in character. It was also contended
that admittedly past conduct of the respondent has not been considered
while imposing the punishment. It was urged that the conduct of the respondent
was otherwise blemishless otherwise. Our attention, in this behalf, has been
drawn to the fact that in terms of the order of the Labour Court refusing to
H grant approval, the respondent was taken back in service in the year 1989 and
MANAGEMENT, PANDIY AN ROADWAYS CORP.LID.'- N. BALAKRJSHNAN [S.B. SlNllA, J ) 879

since then he has been working in the bank without any blemish whatsoever. A
The learned counsel would submit that the order of acquittal passed by the
Criminal Court having been taken into consideration by the Division Bench,
the same should be considered to be an additional factor apart from the
factors contained in Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders.

11. Clause 17(5) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation reads as B
under:

"In awarding the punishment under this standing order the employer
shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous
record of the workman and any other extenuation or aggravating
circumstances that may exist." c
12. On a plain reading of the said provision and particularly in view of
the fact that the word "shall" has been used, primafacie it would be construed
to be imperative in character. It may, however, be held to be directory in
certain situation. While construing a statute of this nature, the context plays D
an important role. Interpretation of a statute would also depend upon the fact
situation obtaining in the case. There are, however, certain exceptions to the
said rule. The question came up for consideration before this Court in U.P.
State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 402
wherein it was, inter-alia, noticed :
E
"96. Ordinarily, although the word shall is considered to be imperative
in nature but it has to be interpreted as directory if the context or the
intention otherwise demands. (See Sainik Motors v. State ofRajasthan,
AIR para)

97. It is important to note that in Crawford on Statutory Construction F
at p. 539, it is stated:

271. Miscellaneous implied exceptions from the requirements of
mandatory statutes, in generpl.Even where a statute is clearly
mandatory or prohibitory, yet, in many instances, the courts will
regard certain conduct beyond the prohibition of the statute through G
the use of various devices or principles. Most, if not all of these
devices find their justification in considerations of justice. It is a well-
known fact that often to enforce the law to its letter produces manifest
injustice, for frequently equitable and humane considerations, and
other considerations of a closely related nature, would seem to be of
a sufficient calibre to excuse or justify a technical violation of the law. H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A
I 05. Only because the expression shall has been employed in sub-
section (4) of Section 4, the same may not be held to be imperative
in character having regard to the fact that not only, as noticed
hereinbefore, a contract of apprenticeship commences but also in view
B of the fact that an application for registration of apprenticeship contract
is required to be made within a period of three months in terms of Rule
4-B of the Apprenticeship Rules, 1992. The Act nowhere provides for
the consequences of non-registration.

c 109. It is now a well-settled principle of law that ifthe language used
in a statute is capable of bearing more than one construction, the true
meaning thereof should be selected having regard to the consequences
resulting from adopting the alternative constructions. A construction
resulting in hardship, non-fulfilment of the purpose for which the
D statute has been brought in force should be rejected and should be
given that construction which avoids such results."

13. Yet again in P. T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir and Ors., [2003] 8 SCC 498,
this Court observed :

E "45. A statute as is well known must be read in the text and context
thereof. Whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not be
dependent on the user of the words shall or may. Such a question
must be posed and answered having regard to the purpose and object
it seeks to achieve.

F 46. What is mandatory is the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section
23 of the 1950 Act and not the ministerial action of actual publication
of Form 16.

47. The construction of a statute will depend on the purport and
object for which the same had been used. In the instant case the 1960
G Rules do not fix any time for publication of the electoral rolls. On the
other hand Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act categorically mandates that
direction can be issued for revision in the electoral roll by way of·
amendment in inclusion and deletion from the electoral roll till the date
specified for filing nomination. The electoral roll as revised by reason
of such directions can therefore be amended only thereafter. On the
H
MANAGEMENT, PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORP LTD."· N BALAKRJSliNAN [S.B SINHA, J ) 88 J

basis of direction issued by the competent authority in relation to an A
application filed for inclusion of a voters name, a nomination can be
filed. The person concerned, therefore, would not be inconvenienced
or in any way be prejudiced only because the revised electoral roll in
Form 16 is published a few hours later. The result of filing of such
nomination would become known to the parties concerned also after
3.00p.m. B

48. Furthermore, even if the statute specifies a time for publication of
the electoral roll, the same by itself could not have been held to be
mandatory. Such a provision would be directory in nature. It is a well-
settled principle of law that where a statutory functionary is asked to
perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same C
would be directory and not mandatory. (See Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha
v. District Magistrate of Monghyr, Nomita Chowdhury, v. State of
WB. and Garbari Union Coop. Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v.
Swapan Kumar Jana)

49. Furthermore, a provision in a statute which is procedural in nature
D
although employs the word shall may not be held to be mandatory if
thereby no prejudice is caused. (See Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v.
Municipal Board, Rampur, State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma,
Venkataswamappa v. Special Dy. Commr. (Revenue) and Rai Vimal
Krishna v. State of Bihar.)" E
14. In Ashok Lanka and Anr v. Rishi Dixit and Ors., [2005] 5 SCC 598,
it was held :

"53. The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory
would depend upon the statutory scheme. It is now well known that p
use of the expression shall or may by itself is not decisive. The court
while construing a statute must consider all relevant factors including
the purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve. (See P. T. Rajan
v. T.P.M Sahir and U.P. SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh.)"

15. There cannot also be any doubt that ordinarily consequences flowing G
from contravention of an imperative character of a statute has to be given
effect to. A statutory provision may be substantive or procedural. If it is
substantive, the requirements laid down in the statute should ordinarily be
complied with. However, when the provisions contain a procedural matter,
substantial compliance thereof would serve the purpose.
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120011 6 s.c:R.

A 16. Application of a statute or principle of law, however, may vary from
case to case.

17. Only because the statute is imperative, it may not necessarily lead
to a declaration that the order impugned is a nullity.

B 18. In State Bank of Patiala and Ors v. S. K. Sharma, [ 1996] 3 SCC 364,
this Court has, inter alia, laid down the law in the following terms :

"33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above
discussion. (These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are
evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and
c orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee):

(4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a
mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined
from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may,
D
the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set
aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the
delinquent employee.
(b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is
of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the
E provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded
against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then
it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the
said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is
found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot
F be set aside on the ground of the said violation. If, on the other
hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not
waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then
the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions (include
the setting aside of the order of punishment), keeping in mind
the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in B.
G Karunakar 18. The ultimate test is always the same, viz., test of
prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called."

19. Ordinarily, although sub-clause (5) of Clause (17) of the Certified
Standing Orders is required to be complied with, the same, in our opinion,
H would not mean that in a given situation, there cannot be any deviation
~tAt<AGEMENT,PA'IOIYANROADWAYSCORP LTD v. N BALAKRJSHNAN[SB Sl~RA.J] 883
-> therefrom. In a case where dismissal or removal of service is to be ordinarily A
followed e.g. in a case of grave misconduct like misappropriation, strict
enforcement of the rule may not be insisted upon. When, we say so, we are
not oblivious of the law that an executive agency is ordinarily bound by the
standard by which it professes its actions to be judged. [See Harjit Singh &
Anr v. The State of Punjab & Anr., [2007) 3 SCALE 553). But where a
B
procedural provision merely embodied the principles of natural justice, in view
of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala (supra), the question
as to whether the principle has been followed or not will depend upon the
'/ fact situation obtaining in each case. [See As/wk Kumar Sankar v. Union of
" India & Ors .. (2007) 3 SCALE 517).

20. It will be useful to note that in State of Punjab and Ors v. Sukhwinder
c
Singh, (1999) SCC (L&S) 1234, this Court has held that the words "gravest
act of misconduct" occurring in Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules need
not be used in the order of punishment, as it can be found out from the factual
matrix obtaining in each case.
D
21. However, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost
sight of. Respondent, in the meanwhile, has been acquitted. The factum of
his acquittal has been taken into consideration by the Division Bench, which
was considered to be an additional factor. Ordinarily, the question as to
whether acquittal in a criminal case will be conclusive in regard to the order
of punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer in a departmental
E
proceeding is a matter which will again depend upon the fact situation involved
in a given case.

22. There are evidently two lines of decisions of this Court operating
in the field. One being the cases which would come within the purview of F
Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679
and G.M Tank v. State ofGujarat and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 446. However, the
second line of decisions show that an honourable acquittal in the criminal
case itself may not be held to be determinative in respect of order of punishment
meted out to the delinquent officer, inter alia, when : (i) the order of acquittal

- has not been passed on the same set of fact or same set of evidence; (ii) the G
effect of difference in the standard of proof in a criminal trial and disciplinary
proceeding has not been considered. [See Commissioner of Police, New
,. Delhi v. Narender Singh, [2006) 4 SCC 265], or; where the delinquent officer
was charged with something more than the subject-matter of the criminal case
and/or covered by a decision of the Civil Court. [See G.M Tank (supra),
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors., [2006] 11 SCALE 204, and
Naida Enterprises Assn. v. Naida & Ors .. (2007] 2 SCALE 131 [Para 18]

23. In Narinder Mohan Al)'a v. United India Insurance Co. ltd. and
Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 713, this Court held:

B "39. Under certain circumstances, a decision of a civil court is also
binding upon the criminal court although, converse is not true. (See
Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India). However, it is also
true that the standard of proof in a criminal case and civil case is
different.

C 40. We may notice that in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines ltd. this Court observed: (SCC p. 695, para 35)

"35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings,
namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case wee
the same without there being any iota of difference, the
D distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and
burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instance case.
41. We may not be understood to have laid down a law that in all such
circumstances the decision of the civil court or the criminal court
E would be binding on the disciplinary authorities as this Court in large
number of decisions points out that the same would depend upon
other factors as well. See e.g. Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil
Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh and Manager, Reserve bank of
India, v. S. Mani. Each case is, therefore, required to be considered
on its own facts.
F
24. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ganesh Dutt and Ors.,
[1972) 4 SCC 834, this Court stated :

"31. Mr. Sharma referred us to Paragraph 40 of the Certified Standing
Orders of the appellant Company Ex. M-4 to the effect that in the
G order deciding to dismiss the workman, the appellant Company has
not taken into account, as it is bound to, the previous record, if any,
of the workmen. This contention cannot be accepted because in the
-
order dated May 9, 1966, communicated to each of the workmen, in
the penultimate paragraph it has been stated that while arriving at the
H decision to dismiss the employees from the service for misconduct, all
MANAGEMENT,PANDIYANROADWAYSCORP.LTD v. N BALAKRISllNAN!SB SfNHA.J} 885

relevant circumstances including the past record of service, have been A
fully taken into consideration. So far as we could see, no challenge
has been made by the workmen that the appellant has not taken into
account his past record."

25. We are, however. of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this
Court should exercise its extra extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of B
the Constitution of India. Respondent has been taken back in service in the
year 1989. The occurrence took place in the year 1985. TI1e application under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was filed on 16.06.1986. It was rejected by an order
dated 19.4.1989. Respondent, thereafter, was taken back in service. Despite
the fact that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was allowed on 08.10.1999, C
by reason of an interim order of stay granted by the Division Bench, he
continued in his service. By reason of the impugned judgment, the Division
Bench, as noticed hereinbefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Respondent is merely a class IV employee, it does not hold any office
of confidence. He was not charged with an offence of criminal breach of trust.
D
26. Thus, it is now well-settled principle of law that this Court shall not
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, only
because it may be lawful to do so. [See Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd
v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd [2006] 5 SCC 540 and Chandra Singh
and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [2003] 6 SCC 545.
E
27. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

...