The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res ipsa loquitur to uphold overwhelming evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the limited scope of judicial review in modifying disciplinary punishments.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri A.V. Pardhasaradhi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Women Head Constable bearing No.500 working in the Railway Protection Force challenging the Appellate Proceedings bearing Force Order No.87/2021 dated 13.08.2021 passed by Respondent No.3 herein namely the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. By the Impugned Order, Respondent No.3 had modified the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that on 18.02.2021 at about 11.00 A.M, she has received a phone call from the Inspector/Post Commander to report immediately at Rayanapadu Post. Upon reporting, the Inspector/Post Commander had shown video clipping which is said to have been uploaded in Youtube about seven days ago, showing that the Writ Petitioner has demanded a bribe of Rs.200/- from a lorry driver for allowing lorry inside the workshop and finally settled and accepted bribe amount of Rs.100/- from the lorry driver. The said video clipping was confirmed by the statement of P.W.3, who was the truck driver who is alleged to have recorded the entire video. Charges were framed and enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Report dated 16.04.2021 was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority. After issuing Show Cause Notice, after considering the elaborate explanation of the Writ Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, by Proceedings bearing Divisional Order No.36/2021 dated 17.05.2021 imposed the punishment of removal from service.

4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has contended that the entire enquiry was initiated and punishment was inflicted basing on the sole evidence of the video and that the video clipping is a morphed one and that she took Rs.100/- from her husband for the bus charges because she has forgotten her handbag at home. It is contended that the video clipping which is marked in the evidence ought not to have been considered because the truck driver has turned hostile.

5. Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government has contended that the video clipping is not a morphed one. Video is very clear that the Writ Petitioner was blatantly demanding Rs.200/- from the lorry driver as bribe to allow the lorry to be taken into workshop. He further submits that upon negotiations, the Writ Petitioner has brought-down her illegal demand from Rs.200/- to Rs.100/-. The audio-visual evidence in the form of the video clipping is absolutely clinching and unimpeachable. Learned Counsel contended that the evidence that is required in Departmental Proceedings is one of preponderance of probability but not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The strict rules of evidence which are only applicable in Criminal Proceedings and Quasi-criminal proceedings are not applicable in the Departmental Proceedings. He had contended that the punishment inflicted upon the Writ Petitioner is based upon the video clipping and that the punishment inflicted on the Writ Petitioner is justified. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority had taken lenient view by considering her personal circumstances and converted the removal from service and modified removal from service to one of compulsory retirement and prayed that it is not a fit case that warrants any interference by this Court.

6. During the course of argument, since the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner based his submissions on the premise that the video is a morphed one, this Court has infact seen the contents of the video clipping which is filed in the form of a CD along with the material papers as Ex.P.17 (Compact Disc). On watching of the said video clipping (Ex.P.17), the Court could gather that it was the Writ Petitioner who was demanding Rs.200/- and that even while the truck driver was bargaining to reduce the amount, the W