Service Law:
Dismissal from service – Under s. 11(1) of CRPF Act r/w CRPF Rules – After holding disciplinary enquiry – Holding the delinquent guilty of misconduct for carelessly handling the weapon assigned to him as a member of the force, resulting in death of one person – In criminal case u/s. 304 IPC the delinquent was acquitted – Writ petition challenging dismissal from service – Dismissed by High Court – Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge holding that charge of misconduct was not established – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There was no irregularity in the enquiry – High Court in exercise of judicial review was wrong in reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the finding of disciplinary authority – Acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – s. 11(1) – Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – r.27(a).
Departmental Enquiry – Standard of proof – Vis-a-vis criminal trial – Disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case – Criminal trial – Evidence – Standard of proof.
Administrative Law:
Judicial Review – In disciplinary matters – Scope of – Held: While deciding a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry, Court cannot reappreciate evidence – Such finding can be interfered with only where the finding is based on no evidence. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The disciplinary authority found that the charge of misconduct was sustainable on the basis of the evidence on the record. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of Single Judge of High Court primarily on the basis of the depositions of PW 5 and PW 6 to the effect that the 9MM carbine was disassembled. The High Court was manifestly in error in reappreciating the evidence which was adduced during the disciplinary enquiry. The issue, in the exercise of judicial review against a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry, is whether the finding is sustainable with reference to some evidence on the record. The High Court can, interfere only in a situation where the finding is based on no evidence. In such a situation, the finding is rendered perverse. [Para 9] [590-E-G]
1.2 In the present case, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench adverts to the statement of the first respondent of the circumstances in which the death of his colleague occurred. The part of the admission of the first respondent clearly indicates that it was as a result of the handling of the weapon by the first respondent that the bullets were fired and the death of his colleague occurred in consequence. None of the material facts are in dispute. In this view of the matter, the High Court was manifestly in error in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary enquiry, particularly when a Single Judge had, in the course of his judgment, found no irregularity in the enquiry. The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the misconduct proved. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [590-G; 591-A-B]
2.1 A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee has committed a breach of the service rules. [Para 12] [591-C-D]
2.2 In the present case, the Single Judge has adverted to Circular Order No.16/85, which inter alia imposed the obligation upon the members of the CRPF to enforce strict fire discipline and to take severe disciplinary action against the defaulters. The fact that the first respondent was acquitted in the course of the criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The charge in the criminal trial arose from the death of a co-employee in the course of the incident resulting from the firing of a bullet which took place from the weapon which was assigned to the first respondent as a member of the Force. But the charge of misconduct is on the ground of the negligence of the first respondent in handling his weapon and his failure to comply with the departmental instructions in regard to the manner in which the weapon should be handled. Consequently, the acquittal in the criminal case was not a ground for setting aside the penalty which was imposed in the course of the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, having regard to the parameters that govern the exercise of judicial review in disciplinary matters, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable. [Paras 12 and 13] [591-D, F; 592-B-C]
Capt M Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999)
3 SCC 679 : [1999] 2 SCR 257 – held not applicable.
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.