SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

SUBMISSION 0f ‘ICE M0de I: Project f0r Criminal Law Practice’

(March 2024)
Submitted by:

MANISH KUMAR
PRN: 21010224030

Pr0gram: BBA.LLB.
Divisi0n: A

Year: 3rd
Batch: 2021-26

Semester: VI

Symbi0sis Law Sch00l, NOIDA

Symbi0sis Internati0nal (Deemed University), Pune

Submitted t0:

Dr. Sakshi Tiwari

(Asst. Professor)

[1]
 CERTIFICATE

The Project on “G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors" was presented to the
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Company Law II as part of Internal
Continuous. This assessment is based on my research under Dr. Sakshi Tiwari’s
supervision.

The contents of the submission are original and not plagiarized. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the submission has been duly
acknowledged.

I have also taken due care that the contents of my submission are not similar or
the same as another learner’s submission for the aforesaid course.

I understand that I could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if

any, even if detected later.

MANISH KUMAR

Date: 12/03/2024

[2]
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Sakshi Tiwari

for helping me and being my guiding light for this project. They provided
me with valuable insight, which aided me in understanding all the basics
of this project and also helped me with any doubts I had regarding the
project.

I would also like to thank the library department and academic support of
Symbiosis Law School, Noida, for providing me with different research
sources and materials to help make my project with the best of originality.

I would also like to thank Symbiosis Law School, Noida, for providing me
with this project so that I could understand the basic information
regarding Company Law satisfactorily and in full detail.

[3]
 INTRODUCTION

The case 0f G.M. Tank vs. the State 0f Gujarat and 0thers 1 is critical in legal
jurisprudence, especially f0r aspiring legal practiti0ners attempting t0 traverse the
c0mplexity 0f administrative law. It is a crucial m0ment when the 0verlapping r0utes 0f
departmental pr0cesses and criminal pr0secuti0ns meet, pr0viding unique insights int0
the c0mplex mechanics 0f disciplinary measures against public empl0yees.

This extensive case analysis will systematically investigate the legal c0ntext surr0unding
G.M. Tank's rem0val fr0m service and the f0ll0wing legal challenges. 0ur trip begins
with a th0r0ugh review 0f the case's hist0ry, laying the gr0undw0rk f0r a m0re nuanced
understanding 0f the issues. This c0ntextual framew0rk 0ffers the f0undati0ns f0r
th0r0ughly examining the legal c0ncepts and legislati0n used thr0ugh0ut the trial
pr0cesses.

As we pr0ceed thr0ugh the research, we l00k at the c0mplicated structure 0f evidence

that underlies the case, painstakingly evaluating the arguments given by b0th sides.
Rec0gnizing the significance 0f these arguments in determining the c0urt's eventual
decisi0n, we carefully c0nsider their strengths and weaknesses. We seek t0 pr0vide a
c0mprehensive kn0wledge 0f the case's c0mplicated legal envir0nment by shedding
light 0n each party's p0ints 0f view and c0ntenti0ns.

F0ll0wing that, 0ur research shifts t0 evaluating the c0urt's p0siti0n 0n the issue,
delving int0 the reas0ning behind its decisi0n. We h0pe t0 shed light 0n the judicial
principles and precedents that influenced the legal c0nclusi0n by meticul0usly
dissecting the c0urt's reas0ning and ‘rati0-decidendi.’ This c0mprehensive investigati0n
pr0vides readers with essential insights int0 the c0mplicated issues that inf0rm judicial
decisi0n-making in administrative law.

Finally, 0ur examinati0n 0f G.M. Tank vs. State 0f Gujarat and 0thers dem0nstrates the
0ng0ing imp0rtance 0f judicial precedent in altering the parameters 0f justice in

1
G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2006) SCC (LS) 1121

[4]
s0ciety. By traversing the c0mplexity 0f departmental pr0cesses and criminal
pr0secuti0ns, we want t0 pr0vide readers with a m0re nuanced kn0wledge 0f the legal
c0ncepts at w0rk. Finally, this research dem0nstrates the permanent influence 0f legal
precedent 0n the ev0luti0n 0f legal jurisprudence.

ISSUES

01. Whether the dismissal 0f G.M. Tank fr0m service by the State 0f Gujarat is valid,
c0nsidering pr0cedural fairness, adherence t0 natural justice, and sufficiency 0f
evidence.

02. Did the appellant's acquittal by the criminal c0urt release him 0f acc0untability
under the department's disciplinary auth0rity, given the same allegati0ns and
evidence pr0duced in b0th the departmental pr0ceedings and the criminal case?

RULES

 Article 226 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India2

 Article 227 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India3
 Secti0n 313 0f C0de 0f Criminal Pr0cedure, 1973 (CrPC)4
 Secti0n 5(1)(e) 0f the Preventi0n 0f c0rrupti0n act 19885
 Secti0n 147, 304(A), 329, 338, 353 0f Indian Penal C0de, 1860 (IPC)6

2
INDIA CONST. art. 226.
3
INDIA CONST. art. 227.
4
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Act No. 2 of 1974, § 313.
5
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, No. 49 of 1988, § 5(1)(e).
6
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act No. 45 of 1860

[5]
While several rules and legislati0n were crucial t0 this case's pr0ceedings, the auth0r
f0cuses mainly 0n tw0 key legal pr0visi0ns: Secti0n 313 0f the C0de 0f Criminal
Pr0cedure (CrPC) and the Preventi0n 0f C0rrupti0n Act. These statutes are the
f0undati0n 0f the case's narrative, with the wh0le debate centered 0n their applicati0n
and interpretati0n. As a result, the ab0ve analysis f0cuses primarily 0n the implicati0ns
and repercussi0ns 0f these tw0 legal framew0rks in m0lding the c0urt's arguments,
evidence, and c0nclusi0n.

ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Maulik Nanavati, an appellant, was a public w0rker wh0 w0rked as an engineer f0r
the G0vernment 0f Gujarat's Irrigati0n Department. 0n February 8, 1979, he was
suspended fr0m duty due t0 charges 0f p0ssessing pr0perty m0re than his rec0gnized
s0urces 0f inc0me, indicating unlawful gratificati0n. The allegati0ns ar0se fr0m
departmental and criminal pr0cesses br0ught against him under the Preventi0n 0f
C0rrupti0n Act.

During the departmental investigati0n, Mr. Nanavati was charged 0f p0ssessing

pr0perty dispr0p0rti0nate t0 his kn0wn inc0me, which he allegedly g0t illegally. The
investigati0n included an examinati0n 0f Mr. Nanavati's relatives, including his wife,
father-in-law, br0ther-in-law, and br0ther. The Enquiry 0fficer's rep0rt stated that Mr.
Nanavati 0wned pr0perty dispr0p0rti0nate t0 his kn0wn inc0me, indicating that he
had received unlawful gratificati0n. As a result, the g0vernment gave Mr. Nanavati a
sh0w-cause n0tice, t0 which he answered, but he was eventually rem0ved fr0m service
0n 0ct0ber 15, 1982.

[6]
Simultane0usly, criminal pr0ceedings against Mr. Nanavati were begun under Secti0n
5(1)(e) 0f the P.C. Act, which deals with criminal wr0ngd0ing by public empl0yees. The
pr0secuti0n claimed that Mr. Nanavati held financial res0urces that were
dispr0p0rti0nate t0 his rec0gnized s0urces 0f inc0me. Mr. Nanavati maintained his
inn0cence, claiming that gifts fr0m his wealthy in-laws acc0unted f0r the alleged
excessive assets.

After reviewing the evidence, the Special C0urt acquitted Mr. Nanavati, c0ncluding that
the pr0secuti0n failed t0 pr0ve its case bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt. The c0urt n0ted
an0malies in the pr0secuti0n's evidence and accepted Mr. Nanavati's explanati0n f0r
the gifts received fr0m his in-laws. Despite his acquittal, Mr. Nanavati had previ0usly
been fired due t0 identical allegati0ns and evidence pr0duced in departmental
pr0cesses.

Arguments made by the Appellant

The Appellant, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, presented several arguments supp0rting his case.
Firstly, he c0ntended that there was a lack 0f evidence t0 supp0rt the allegati0ns
against him, asserting that the departmental pr0ceedings and the criminal case were
based 0n identical facts and evidence. He argued that the Enquiry 0fficer failed t0
c0nsider his explanati0ns adequately and relied heavily 0n testim0ny fr0m interested
witnesses, namely his relatives, with0ut c0ncrete d0cumentary evidence.

Mr. Nanavati's att0rney supp0rted his claims with many case law citati0ns. In Ajit
Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian 0il C0rp0rati0n Ltd.7, it was held that
acquittal by a criminal c0urt d0es n0t preclude an empl0yer fr0m taking disciplinary
acti0n based 0n departmental rules; similarly, in Dep0t Manager, A.P. State R0ad
Transp0rt C0rp0rati0n v. M0hd. Y0usuf Miya 8, it was emphasized that departmental

7
Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), AIR (2005) SC 4217
8
Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, AIR 1997 SUPREME
COURT 2232

[7]
inquiries serve a different purp0se than criminal trials, and acquittal in the latter d0es
n0t necessarily abs0lve the accused in the f0rmer.

Furtherm0re, Mr. Nanavati argued that the pr0secuti0n did n0t discharge the burden 0f
pr00f in the criminal case. He highlighted discrepancies in the pr0secuti0n's evidence
and emphasized that his explanati0ns regarding the allegedly dispr0p0rti0nate assets
were n0t adequately c0nsidered. The appellant maintained that the charges against him
were n0t pr0ved bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt in the criminal trial.

In sum, Mr. Nanavati's arguments centered 0n the lack 0f evidence against

him in b0th the departmental pr0ceedings and the criminal case. He
c0ntended that the charges were n0t substantiated and that his explanati0ns were n0t
c0nsidered. The cited case laws supp0rted his p0siti0n that acquittal in the criminal
case sh0uld als0 have implicati0ns f0r the departmental pr0ceedings.

Arguments made by the Resp0ndent

The Resp0ndent, representing the State, presented c0unterarguments t0 the Appellant's

claims. Firstly, it was argued that the departmental pr0ceedings and the criminal case
served distinct purp0ses, with different burdens 0f pr00f and standards 0f evidence.
The Resp0ndent emphasized that acquittal in the criminal case did n0t aut0matically
invalidate the findings 0f the departmental inquiry.

Sec0ndly, the Resp0ndent argued that the burden 0f pr00f in the criminal case differed
fr0m that in the departmental pr0ceedings. While the criminal trial required pr00f
bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt, the departmental inquiry 0perated 0n a prep0nderance 0f
pr0bability standard. Thus, the Resp0ndent c0ntended that the acquittal in the criminal
case did n0t necessarily undermine the findings 0f the departmental inquiry.

Furtherm0re, the Resp0ndent asserted that the Enquiry 0fficer had c0nducted a
th0r0ugh investigati0n, c0nsidering all evidence presented, including the
explanati0ns pr0vided by the Appellant. It was argued that the Enquiry 0fficer's

[8]
findings were based 0n a careful assessment 0f the evidence and were n0t invalidated by
the subsequent acquittal in the criminal case.

In straightf0rward terms, the Resp0ndent's arguments f0cused 0n the differences

between the aims and standards 0f evidence in administrative pr0cesses and criminal
trials. They maintained that the criminal case's acquittal did n0t undermine the
departmental inquiry's c0nclusi0ns, which were established using a separate meth0d
and level 0f pr00f.

COURT’S STAND

Bef0re making its verdict, the c0urt carefully reviewed the Appellant's and Resp0ndent's
arguments. It n0ted the c0ntrast between the aims and standards 0f evidence in
departmental pr0cesses and criminal trials, agreeing with the Resp0ndent. The c0urt
accepted the Resp0ndent's p0siti0n that the criminal case's acquittal did n0t
aut0matically invalidate the departmental inquiry's c0nclusi0ns since the tw0
pr0cedures w0rked in separate d0mains with different burdens 0f pr00f.

Furtherm0re, the c0urt f0und substance in the Resp0ndent's claim that the burden 0f
pr00f in the criminal trial was higher than in the departmental pr0cedures. While the
criminal trial required pr00f bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt, the departmental inquiry used
a prep0nderance 0f likelih00d standard. The c0urt c0mmended the Enquiry 0fficer f0r
c0nducting a c0mprehensive investigati0n and carefully c0nsidering all material,
including the Appellant's answers.

Finally, the c0urt's ruling was f0unded 0n the idea that an acquittal in a criminal case
w0uld n0t pr0hibit disciplinary acti0n under departmental regulati0ns, as established
in pri0r legal precedents such as Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ)9, Indian 0il
C0rp0rati0n Ltd. The c0urt's reas0ning was based 0n preserving discipline in
public service and pr0tecting departmental investigati0ns' integrity. As a

9
Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), AIR (2005) SC 4217

[9]
result, the c0urt supp0rted the legitimacy 0f the departmental pr0cedures and
c0nfirmed the Appellant's discharge fr0m service.

The c0urt's ruling said that an acquittal in a criminal case did n0t aut0matically
invalidate the results 0f a departmental investigati0n, and disciplinary acti0n might
pr0ceed based 0n the evidence and standards 0f pr00f applicable in departmental
pr0cedures. This c0ncept guaranteed that public w0rkers were held acc0untable f0r
their acti0ns within the c0ntext 0f departmental rules and regulati0ns, independent 0f
the 0utc0mes 0f criminal cases.

CONCLUSION

T0 c0nclude this case research, the C0urt's ruling must be critically evaluated in light 0f
fairness, acc0untability, and legal precedent principles. While the c0urt's decisi0n
emphasizes preserving discipline in public service and safeguarding the integrity 0f
departmental investigati0ns, several elements deserve further examinati0n.

First, while it is evident that disciplinary acti0n may pr0ceed regardless 0f the 0utc0me
0f a criminal trial, the c0urt's view that an acquittal in the criminal case d0es n0t
aut0matically invalidate the departmental inquiry's findings raises pr0blems. This
viewp0int diminishes the relevance 0f the criminal justice system's finding 0f inn0cence
0r guilt bey0nd a reas0nable d0ubt. D0uble je0pardy is p0ssible, in which an individual
may suffer disciplinary sancti0ns in a departmental case despite having been acquitted
in a criminal trial based 0n the same claims and evidence.

Furtherm0re, the c0urt's emphasis 0n preserving discipline must be weighed against

the fundamental c0ncept 0f justice and individual rights. There appears t0 be a lack 0f
clarity 0n the level 0f pr00f necessary in departmental investigati0ns, particularly the

[10]
burden put 0n the accused. With0ut defined rules, individuals may face arbitrary 0r
unreas0nable disciplinary pr0ceedings.

Furtherm0re, while the c0urt's ruling was based 0n earlier legal precedents, a th0r0ugh
assessment 0f the legislative framew0rk is still needed t0 c0ntr0l the c0nfluence 0f
criminal trials and administrative acti0ns. This w0uld pr0m0te unif0rmity, 0penness,
and c0nf0rmity t0 natural justice principles.

Ultimately, while the c0urt's ruling strives t0 maintain instituti0nal integrity and
acc0untability, inherent c0mplicati0ns and p0tential flaws in the legislative structure
regulating disciplinary measures against public empl0yees require additi0nal
c0nsiderati0n and refinement. The judicial system must strike a careful balance
between discipline and justice, pr0tecting individuals' rights while adhering t0 the
n0rms 0f public service ethics.

[11]