Question

Apply the given legal principles to the facts provided in the following of the question and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle : Double jeopardy : No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Facts : Arun was a Government Employee working in the examination and admissions department of Indian Institute of Science and Technology (IIST), the best engineering college in India. Arun was accused of having leaked the entrance examination paper to Kamlesh for a hefty bribe. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Kamlesh by IIST wherein he was found guilty and as a penalty, he was removed from employment. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against him for having committed the offence of cheating by leaking the entrance paper. Arun takes the defence that the criminal prosecution is not permitted by the principle of double jeopardy. Decide.

• A. The principle of double jeopardy will not apply as the disciplinary proceedings by IIST cannot be termed as prosecution since they were mere departmental proceedings and not criminal prosecution
• B. The principle of double jeopardy will apply as Arun has already been found guilty and punished by IIST
• C. The principle of double jeopardy will not apply as Arun is accused of a serious offence of cheating the public at large
• D. Both (a) and (c)

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The principle of double jeopardy ensures that no person is prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence. This principle applies only to criminal prosecutions and punishments. In the scenario presented, Arun faced disciplinary action by the Indian Institute of Science and Technology (IIST) as a result of allegations of leaking examination papers. During these proceedings, Arun was found guilty and was subsequently dismissed from his position. However, these are classified as departmental proceedings rather than criminal prosecution.
It is crucial to distinguish between departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution. Although disciplinary actions can result in penalties such as dismissal, they do not equate to legal criminal prosecution conducted by the state in a court of law. Therefore, such proceedings are considered separate from criminal trials.
Following his dismissal, a criminal case was instituted against Arun for the offence of cheating, specifically, for leaking examination papers. Since the initial proceedings by the IIST were of a disciplinary nature and not criminal, the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable here. Arun’s claim of double jeopardy is invalid because he has not yet faced a criminal prosecution in relation to this offence.
Consequently, the most appropriate answer based on these principles is: The principle of double jeopardy will not apply as the disciplinary proceedings by IIST cannot be termed as prosecution since they were mere departmental proceedings and not criminal prosecution.