IMPORTANT POINTS
In judicial review against finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry, Court can interfere only when the finding is perverse, i.e., based on no evidence.
Standard of proof in disciplinary enquiry is not akin to that applicable in criminal cases.
Acquittal in criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct arrived at during course of the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. The first respondent was enlisted as a constable in the CRPF on 20 September 1971. He was posted in the 41st Batallion in September 1989. In February 1998, he was functioning as Head Constable and was deployed at Ractiacherra, Police Station Jirania, West Tripura. A carbine was issued to him. It is alleged that, on 18 February 1998 at about 0945 hours, while he was cleaning the barrel of his loaded 9 MM carbine in the barracks, he did not remove the magazine and proceeded to clean the carbine carelessly. As a result, eight rounds were fired. One of the bullets hit a co-constable who was present in the barracks. He died as a result of the injuries which were sustained. A First Information Report was lodged. The Commandant initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the first respondent. The charge was in the following terms:

“That, No.710170325 HC Sita Ram Mishra, while serving as a Head Constable (GD) in “B” Coy, duct and remissness in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, punishable under Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules, 1955, in that he on 18.02.1998 at about 0945 hours, started cleaning barrel of his loaded 9 MM Carbine (No.15356032, Butt no.13) in men barrack of B/41 Bn. CRPF, carelessly without removing its magazine on his bed. In this process of clearning, 08 Rounds got fired automatically and one of these bullet hit No.901310271 Ct. Sailesh Kumar Tiwari who was present there in the barrack. No.901310271 Ct. Sailesh Kumar Tiwari subsequently succumbed to his injuries at about 1020 hours same day in Civil Hospital, Jirania, Agartala.”

2. After conducting a disciplinary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 12 March 1999. The first respondent was held to be guilty of misconduct by the disciplinary authority, as a result of which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 read with Rule 27(a) of the CRPF Rules 1955. The appeal as well as the revision petition filed by the first respondent were dismissed.

3. The first respondent was also tried of an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [“IPC”]. He was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, Tripura West on 5 January 2002.

4. The writ petition filed by the first respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge his dismissal from service was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. However, in a writ appeal, the Division Bench interfered with the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the charge of misconduct was not established. Since the first respondent had, in the meantime, retired from service, the Division Bench directed that he be treated in service until he attained the age of superannuation and be paid full back wages after adjusting the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension.

5. The High Court, by its impugned judgment in the writ appeal, held that:

(i) The charge of misconduct was belied by the depositions of PW 5 and PW 6 during the course of the disciplinary enquiry to the effect that the carbine was disassembled when it was being cleaned;

(ii) There was no evidence in support of the finding of misconduct;

(iii) The departmental proceedings as well as the criminal case were “same and identical”; and

(iv) The departmental proceedings were not sustainable after the acquittal of the first respondent from the criminal case.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has fallen into a serious error in interfering with the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, particularly in a case such as present, where the charge of misconduct was duly proved on the basis of the evidence adduced in the disciplinary enquiry. It was further submitted that the facts are not in dispute, viz., that the first respondent was in possession of a carbine which was assigned to him for hi