In Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod District & Others v. V.V. Kumaran [O.P. (KAT) No. 59 of 2017], a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's (KAT) decision to reinstate V.V. Kumaran, a police constable terminated following disciplinary proceedings. The court reaffirmed that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, precludes penalties in departmental inquiries based on the same facts where a criminal acquittal has been secured.

"The principles of law dictate that when departmental proceedings rest on the same factual matrix as criminal trials leading to acquittal, disciplinary actions cannot withstand scrutiny," the Bench stated, reiterating precedent established by the Supreme Court.

The disciplinary proceedings against Kumaran arose from allegations that, while on sentry duty at Kasaragod Town Police Station, he, along with others, committed theft of sandalwood oil stored as contraband evidence. Following an inquiry, the District Police Superintendent ordered his removal from service on October 30, 1999. Kumaran’s appeals to various levels within the police hierarchy and the Kerala Government were all rejected.

Simultaneously, Kumaran faced criminal prosecution for the same allegations but was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, due to lack of evidence. He approached the KAT, which set aside his termination and directed his reinstatement with service benefits, including back wages.

The petitioners, represented by Senior Government Pleader Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, argued that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, was inapplicable as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to the Act’s commencement. They emphasized the distinction between the evidentiary standards in criminal and disciplinary proceedings, asserting that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically nullify departmental penalties.

The petitioners further contended that the Tribunal had misconstrued Supreme Court rulings, particularly Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 679], to incorrectly apply the bar under Section 101(8).

Respondent represented by Sri. M. Sasindran, Kumaran countered that the identical charges and evidence in both the criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings invalidated the latter under Section 101(8). He cited G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 5 SCC 446], emphasizing the principle that disciplinary action cannot proceed when the factual foundation has been rejected by a competent criminal court.

The Bench undertook a meticulous scrutiny of the factual congruence between the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial. It observed that the allegations, witnesses, and evidence were materially identical; the court upheld the KAT's findings. It observed, "The edifice of both proceedings being identical, no penalty could be imposed under Section 101(8) when the criminal court exonerates the officer."

The court also addressed the retrospective application of Section 101(8), holding that pending proceedings are governed by the Act if the conduct under scrutiny continues to have legal consequences after its enactment.

Referring to Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank, the Bench concluded that the Tribunal’s reliance on these judgments was legally sound. The court further limited back wages to three years preceding the judgment date, citing equitable considerations in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Case Title: Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod District & Others v. V.V. Kumaran

Case Number: O.P. (KAT) No. 59 of 2017

Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar