2019 Supreme(SC) 295

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
S. SREESANTH – Appellant
Versus
THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA AND OTHERS – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2424 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 3551 of 2018)
Decided on : 15-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Constitutional court in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted under Code of Conduct framed by BCCI will interfere only when conclusions of disciplinary committee are perverse or based on no evidence.
(2) There is vast distinction in scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI on other hand.
(3) When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life time ban is provided for, discretion to which, either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant facts and circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India – Articles 32/136/226 – Life ban on an acclaimed cricketer of India – Allegations of match fixing – Scope of judicial review – Show-cause notice with respect to material relied by disciplinary committee, appellant was given full opportunity to have his say – There was no violation of principles of natural justice by disciplinary committee of BCCI – Disciplinary inquiry conducted by disciplinary committee of BCCI is akin to disciplinary inquiry conducted against a public servant under relevant statutory rules except few distinctions – There being specific allegations made against appellant in show-cause notice it was incumbent on appellant to have explained evidence and circumstances which were sought to be relied against appellant – In disciplinary proceedings delinquent has to explain circumstances and evidence relied against him – Charges have to be proved by BCCI for taking any action under Anti-Corruption Code – Disciplinary committee of BCCI had jurisdiction to form its own opinion after considering evidence on record – Constitutional court in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings conducted under Code of Conduct framed by BCCI will interfere only when conclusions of disciplinary committee are perverse or based on no evidence – On appreciation of evidence, it is not open for High Court or this Court to substitute its own opinion based on appreciation of material on record on charges proved. (Paras 25, 30, 34 and 37)

       (B) Sports – Cricket – Life ban on an acclaimed cricketer of India – Allegations of match fixing – Appellant was discharged from criminal case – There is vast distinction in scope of inquiry between a criminal trial on one hand and disciplinary inquiry against a public servant or disciplinary inquiry under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI on other hand – Sessions Court had not to deal with question whether appellant is guilty of violating Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI – Clauses which appellant breached under Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI are entirely different from offences under which appellant had been charged before Sessions Court – Ingredients required to establish breach of BCCI Code are also distinct and separate from ingredients required to prove offences under penal statutes in question – Standard of proof in a disciplinary inquiry and in a trial of a criminal case are entirely different – In a criminal case it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt wherein in departmental inquiry preponderance of probability is to serve the purpose – Criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is not applicable in disciplinary proceedings initiated by disciplinary committee of BCCI. (Paras 38, 39 and 40)

       (C) Sports – Cricket – Life ban on an acclaimed cricketer of India – Allegations of match fixing – Principle of sentencing as applicable in criminal cases may not be strictly applicable for considering issue of punishment/sanction under Anti-Corruption Code but principles noticed pertaining to sentencing serve a safe guideline for exercise on jurisdiction under Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code – Zero tolerance approach cannot dilute consideration of relevant factors while imposing sanction under Article 6 – Without considering relevant provisions of Anti-Corruption Code disciplinary committee has imposed life time ban which sanction cannot be held to be in accordance with Anti-Corruption Code itself – Subsequent conduct of appellant also shows obedience to BCCI – Sanction under Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code of BCCI is nothing but punishment on commission of the offences and akin to sentencing in criminal jurisprudence – In cases where offences under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are proved, disciplinary committee is not obliged to award a life time ban in all cases where such offences are proved – When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life time ban is provided for, discretion to which, either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant facts and circumstances – Order of disciplinary committee only to the extent of imposing sanction of life time ban set aside – Disciplinary committee of BCCI may reconsider quantum of punishment/sanction which may be imposed on appellant as per Article 6 of Anti-Corruption Code – Appellant may be given one opportunity to have his say on question of quantum of punishment/sanction – Appellant shall await decision of disciplinary committee and future course of action shall be in accordance with decision of disciplinary committee so taken. (Paras 51, 52, 58, 60 and 61)

       Facts of Case:

       Present is an appeal filed by an acclaimed cricketer of India against whom proceedings were drawn by BCCI pursuant to allegations of match fixing. Life ban was imposed on appellant by BCCI which was unsuccessfully challenged before Kerala High Court and aggrieved by Division Bench judgment of High Court appellant has filed this appeal.

       Findings of Court:

       Life ban has been imposed on the appellant on offences under Article 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.14(corruption), for which as per second column a minimum of five years and maximum of life time ineligibility is provided for. Whether in case where offence under Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 is proved, disciplinary committee is obliged to award a life time ban. Answer has to be that life ban cannot be imposed in all cases where such offences are proved. When range of ineligibility which is minimum five years, maximum life ban is provided for, discretion to choose either minimum or maximum or in between has to be exercised on relevant factors and circumstances.

       Result : Appeal Partly allowed.