Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Airports Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Pradip Kumar Banerjee – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 8414 of 2017
Decided On : 04-02-2025
(A) Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – In disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by delinquent officer in representation against proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in order imposing punishment if he accepts findings recorded by Enquiry Officer – All that is required on part of Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine evidence in disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that material placed on record during course of enquiry establishes guilt of delinquent employee on principle of preponderance of probabilities – Burden laid upon prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – However, in a disciplinary enquiry burden upon department is limited and it is required to prove its case on principle of preponderance of probabilities. (Pars 32, 33 and 34)
(B) Service Law – Dismissal from service – Allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on charge of accepting illegal gratification during course of discharge of his official duties – Acquittal in criminal case – Even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, courts are empowered to record conviction where decoy turns hostile and prosecution case is based purely on evidence of Trap Laying Officer and trap witnesses – Present subject matter concerns a domestic enquiry, where strict rules of evidence prohibiting admissibility of confessional statements recorded by police officials do not apply – Likewise, non-examination of decoy cannot be treated to be fatal in domestic enquiry where other evidence indicts delinquent officer – Division Bench clearly erred in holding that non-examination of complainant was fatal to disciplinary proceedings conducted by appellant-Authority – Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon respondent – In an intra-court writ appeal, Appellate Court must restrain itself and interference into judgment passed by Single Judge is permissible only if judgment of Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law – Division Bench, while exercising intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with concurrent findings recorded by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as affirmed by Single Judge – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 25, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39 and 40)
Facts of the case:
Single Judge upheld punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon respondent by Disciplinary Authority and subsequently confirmed by sub-committee while acting as Appellate Authority.
Findings of Court:
Division Bench, while exercising intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with concurrent findings recorded by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as affirmed by Single Judge.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal trials (!) (!) (!) . - A Division Bench may only interfere with a Single Judge’s judgment if it is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law (!) (!) (!) . - An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary proceedings if the enquiry is based on preponderance of probabilities and other admissible evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Non-examination of the complainant (decoy) is not fatal to a disciplinary enquiry where other evidence indicts the delinquent officer (!) (!) (!) . - The Disciplinary Authority need not address every ground raised in representation if it accepts the Enquiry Officer’s findings and imposes punishment accordingly (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The instant appeal by special leave preferred by the appellant1[Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Authority”.] takes exception to the judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta2[Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.] in an intra-court writ appeal3[Tender of Mandamus Appeal (MAT) No. 1311 of 2011.], whereby the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge vide order4[Writ Petition No. 9701(W) of 2010.] dated 29th June, 2011, upheld the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently confirmed by the sub-committee while acting as the Appellate Authority.
Brief Facts:-
3. The respondent, while working with the appellant-Authority as an Assistant Engineer (Civil), was arrested along with a co- employee, who was working as a Junior Engineer in the appellant- Authority, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19885[For short “PC Act”.] and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the representative of a contractor. Pursuant to the aforesaid arrest, both of them were suspended and a CBI Case6[Special Case No. 8 of 1993.] was registered against them. The learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Alipore7 [For short “CBI Court”.], vide order dated 10th December, 1999, found the respondent guilty for the above-mentioned offences. On the contrary, the co-
accused(Junior Engineer) was acquitted by the CBI Court. Aggrieved by his conviction, the respondent preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1999, before the High Court.
4. While the criminal appeal was pending before the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 13th July, 2000, dispensed with the enquiry and ordered dismissal of the respondent from service relying on the CBI Court’s order. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected. Thereupon, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition No. 22034(W) of 2000, before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal. The same was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 5th February, 2001, with a direction that if the respondent is acquitted in the pending criminal appeal, then it would be open for him to make an appropriate representation before the appellant-Authority to reconsider the dismissal order, which would, in turn, be decided in accordance with law.
5. Vide judgment dated 16th July, 2004, the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent was ultimately allowed by the High Court, and his conviction and sentence was set aside. Based on his acquittal, the respondent filed a representation before the appellant-Authority seeking reinstatement in service, in terms of the order dated 5th February, 2001 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 22034(W) of 2000. However, the appellant-Authority rejected the respondent’s representation. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 21324(W) of 2004, which came to be disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2004, directing the Chairman of appellant-Authority to reconsider the grievances of the respondent by granting him an opportunity of hearing.
6. In compliance with the order dated 22nd December, 2004, the Chairman of the appellant-Authority heard the respondent and vide order dated 24th March, 2005, directed that a fresh disciplinary proceeding for major penalty of dismissal from service should be initiated against the respondent under the Airport Authority of India Employees (CDA) Regulations, 2003. The Chairman was of the opinion that the High Court had set aside the conviction of the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt and hence, it was not an honourable acquittal. The Chairma
(1) Disciplinary Proceedings – In disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by delinquent officer in representation against pr....
Criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt does not bar or nullify departmental disciplinary action, which follows preponderance of probability standard; Tribunal cannot interfere with punishment unless ....
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fai....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
