Service Law – Dismissal from service – The writ petitioner was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) – A FIR was lodged against the writ petitioner u/ss. 302,
307 of IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act – He was accused of firing from his service revolver on Head Constable and Deputy Commandant, resulting in death of the Head Constable and injuring Deputy Commandant – Trial Court convicted the writ petitioner – However, the High Court acquitted him – Criminal Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court – The writ petitioner was dismissed from service on account of conviction by the trial Court – However, as he was acquitted by the High Court, the writ petitioner was reinstated – Another charge-sheet was issued on 25.02.2013 – The Commandant, the punishing authority returned the finding that writ petitioner had misused his service weapon and was not entitled to be retained in the disciplinary force – The order was affirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority – In the writ petition filed, the High Court exercised power of judicial review set aside the order of dismissal of the Competent Authority – On appeal, held: The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review over the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings which were conducted while adhering to the principles of natural justice – The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct – The allegations in the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 that the writ petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence placed before them – It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review – It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the principles of natural justice – The best available evidence was produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry – The order passed by the High Court is not sustainable – Hence, the same is set aside and the order of punishment of dismissal passed as affirmed in appeal and revision stands restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This court observed that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review over the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings which were conducted while adhering to the principles of natural justice. [Para 17][808-G]
2. In the present case this court observed that the writ petitioner completed his fatigue duty at 10 am and then reported for duty at the Headquarters. In the later Charge Sheet dated 25.2.2013, the departmental witnesses have uniformly deposed that the noise of firing of 15-20 gun shots was heard around 11 am on 11.4.1993. In fact, PW-6 Constable is the one who immobilized the writ petitioner when he was in the process of loading another magazine in the self-loading rifle. Still further, PW-5 has deposed that 3-4 soldiers had taken the self-loaded rifle of the writ petitioner. Such self-loaded rifle is the one which was issued to the writ petitioner. The statement of some of the departmental witnesses was that they heard that the writ petitioner used his personal weapon but such part of the statements is hearsay evidence. It was open to the writ petitioner to lead evidence that he was not using the official weapon but a personal weapon to rebut the stand of the Department. [Paras 19 and 20][809-A-D]
3. The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct. The delinquent such as the writ petitioner could examine himself to rebut the allegations of misconduct including use of personal weapon. In fact, the reliance of the writ petitioner is upon a communication dated 1.5.2014 made to the Commandant through the inquiry officer. He has stated that he has not fired on higher officers and that he was out of camp at the alleged time of incident. Therefore, a false case has been made against him. His further stand is that it was a terrorist attack and terrorists have fired on the Camp. None of the departmental witnesses have been even suggested about any terrorist attack or that the writ petitioner was out of camp. Constable PW-6 had immobilized the writ petitioner whereas all other witnesses have seen the writ petitioner being immobilized and being removed to quarter guard. PW-5 deposed that 3-4 soldiers had taken the Self-Loading Rifle (S.L.R.) of the writ petitioner in their possession. Therefore, the allegations in the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 that the writ petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence placed before them. It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the principles of natural justice. The best available evidence had been produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry conducted after long lapse of time. [Para 29][817-E-H; 818-A-B]
4. This court in conclusion in the present case found that the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside and the order of punishment of dismissal passed on 21.12.1996 as affirmed in appeal and revision stands restored. [Para 30][818-C]
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC
491 : [1977] AIR 1512; Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 : [2014] 13 SCR 1312; B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC
749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited v. M. Chandrasekaran (2016) 16 SCC 16 : [2016] 4 SCR 266; Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC
764 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 314; Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 385 : [2007] 1 SCR 892; Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 699 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 941 – relied on.
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.