Service Law: Disciplinary Enquiry – Respondent working as a village accountant was charged for demanding bribery – Criminal complaint registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Special Judge granted benefit of doubt to him and acquitted him of all charges – However, disciplinary authority held that the misconduct was proved and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement – Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement – High Court, however, u/Art.226 set aside compulsory retirement – On appeal, held: While exercising judicial review, Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority – Court does not re-appreciate the evidence which forms the basis of finding of misconduct in the course of a disciplinary enquiry – The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice were complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct was based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules were observed; and (iv) the findings of the disciplinary authority suffered from perversity; and (vi) the penalty was disproportionate to the proven misconduct – None of the above tests were applied by High Court – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Art.226 and trenched upon a domain which fell within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer – Enquiry was conducted in accordance with natural justice – The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority – Judgment of High court set aside – Finding of misconduct and punishment of compulsory retirement restored.
Service Law: Principles governing disciplinary enquiry: Distinction between disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial – Purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment – Unlike a criminal prosecution, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities – The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. [Para 13][585-E-H]
2. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. [Para 17][589-G-H; 590-A-D] State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491; State of Rajasthan v. B K Meena; (1966) 6 SCC 417; Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh (2004) 8 SCC 200; Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; (2005) 7 SCC 764 : [2005]
3 Suppl. SCR 314; CISF v Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507; Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 : [2009] 10 SCR 124; State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC
749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; R.S. Saini v State of Punjab (1999) 8 SCC 90 – relied on.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Narender Singh AIR 2006 SC 1800 : [2006] 3 SCR 872; State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153 : [2013]
7 SCR 113 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.