S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 30 March 1954, 5 judges, 1954 AIR 375, 1954 SCR 1150

An enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 followed by dismissal is not prosecution and punishment for an offence, so Article 20(2) did not bar the later criminal prosecution of the dismissed officer.

Facts

The petitioner, a member of the Indian Civil Service and Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, faced imputations of misbehaviour, including showing undue favour to two firms in issuing import and export licences and accepting valuable things from them. The Central Government directed a formal and public enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 before a Commissioner. Charges were read out, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and witnesses were examined on oath. The Commissioner found four charges proved, and after a show cause notice under Article 311(2) and consultation with the Union Public Service Commission the President dismissed him on 17 September 1953. In February 1954 the police filed a charge-sheet before the Special Judge, Delhi, under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He petitioned under Article 32, claiming that Article 20(2) barred the prosecution.

Questions before the Court

Does an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 followed by dismissal from service amount to prosecution and punishment for an offence within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution?

What the Court held

Article 20(2) is narrower than the English common law rule and the American double jeopardy doctrine. It does not contain the principle of autrefois acquit, and it applies only where there has been both prosecution and punishment for the same offence; the two must co-exist.
Following Maqbool Hussain, the prosecution and punishment must be in the nature of criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal, not a departmental or administrative enquiry. 'Offence' bears its General Clauses Act meaning, so prosecution and punishment must be under the law that creates the offence.
The 1850 Act creates no offence and provides no punishment. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Penal Code or the Prevention of Corruption Act; he examines imputations of misbehaviour. Powers to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath are trappings of a judicial tribunal but leave the proceeding a fact finding enquiry.
The Commissioner's report is a mere opinion lacking finality and authoritativeness and does not bind the Government. Dismissal is an order the Government passes as employer, not punishment for an offence. Article 20(2) was therefore not violated and the petition was dismissed.
The Court did not decide the Attorney General's point that Article 20(2) looks to the same offence and not the same act, nor whether punishment must be imposed by the authority before which the prosecution was conducted.

Why it matters

The judgment applies Maqbool Hussain to hold that an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, though it has some trappings of a judicial tribunal, followed by dismissal, is not prosecution and punishment for an offence. It confirms that Article 20(2) requires both prosecution and punishment for the same offence and does not embody autrefois acquit, so a public servant dismissed after such an enquiry may still be tried criminally on the same allegations.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“It seems that our Constitution makers did not think it necessary to raise one part of the common law rule to the level of a fundamental right and thus make it immune from legislative interference. This has been left to be regulated by the general law of the land. In order to enable a citizen to invoke the protection of clause (2) of article 20 of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in respect of the same offence.”

Mukherjea, J.Page 3 of the judgment

“As has been said already, an order of dismissal of a servant cannot be regarded as a punishment for an offence punishable under particular sections of the Indian Penal Code or of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A somewhat analogous case would be that of a member of the Bar whose name is struck off the rolls on grounds of professional misconduct, in exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction by the proper authority.”

Mukherjea, J.Page 8 of the judgment

“In our opinion, therefore, in an enquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act of 1850, there is neither any question of investigating an offence in the sense of an act or omission punishable by any law for the time being in force, nor is there any question of imposing punishment prescribed by the law which makes that act or omission an offence.”

Mukherjea, J.Page 8 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Article 20(2), Constitution
Sections 21, 22 and 25, Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850

Related judgments

Follows Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)“It has also been held by this court in Maqbool Hussain's case(2) that the language of article 20 and the words actually used in it afford a clear indication that the proceedings in connection with the prosecution and punishment of a person must be in the nature of a criminal proceeding” (page 4)

Case and bench

Parties: S.A. Venkataraman v. The Union of India and Another
Case: Criminal Original Jurisdiction: Petition No. 72 of 1954
Decided: 30 March 1954
Bench: Mukherjea, B.K., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Jagannadhadas, B.
Opinions: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mukherjea, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.