1. Police constable dismissed following disciplinary enquiry for murder while on leave — challenge to dismissal after acquittal in criminal trial on benefit of doubt. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 634
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee,
The State of Rajasthan & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Heem Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30763 of 2019
Decided On : 29-10-2020
Important Points
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of probabilities, while in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.142
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.107, S.161
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.209, S.304(a), S.302, S.120(b), S.34
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.16
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.107, S.161
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.209, S.304(a), S.302, S.120(b), S.34
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.16
Headnote
JUDGEMENT - Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J - This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A. The appeal B. Murder, trial and disciplinary enquiry C. Submissions of counsel D. Proof of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings Findings of the disciplinary enquiry F. The judgment of the Division Bench G. Evidence in the disciplinary enquiry H. On a ‘preponderance of probabilities’ I. Judicial review over disciplinary matters J. The effect of an acquittal K. Conclusion
Fact of the Case:
In 1992, the respondent was appointed as a Constable in the police service of Rajasthan. On 13 August 2002, he proceeded on leave and had to report back on 16 August 2002. He failed to do so and eventually reported for work on 19 August 2020. He sought and was granted permission for over-staying his leave on the ground that his brother-in-law, Shankar Singh had died. On 15 August 2002, one Daulat Singh lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Khamnaur in relation to the death of his brother Bhanwar Singh, caused by an accident with an unknown vehicle. The police initially registered a crime under Sections 209 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code1[“IPC”]. The statements of Daulat Singh, Jodh Singh, Meera and Hamer Singh were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732[“CrPC”]. It appeared during the course of the investigation that the death was homicidal. The investigation by the police proceeded for an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC. The respondent was arrested on 9 September 2002. There were two co-accused, Lokesh Gurva and Iqbal Khan. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120B. Sessions Case 3 of 2003 was committed for trial to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara.
Finding of the Court:
The direction of the Division Bench for reinstatement is set aside. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that the cessation from service will notionally take place on the respondent completing minimum qualifying service. The direction of the High Court that the respondent shall not be entitled to back wages is upheld. The retiral dues of the respondent shall be computed and released on this basis within a period of three months.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the disciplinary findings and ordering the reinstatement of the respondent, a police constable, who was dismissed from service after being found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry? 2. Whether the High Court failed to properly consider the evidence on record, including the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal trial for murder, in reaching its decision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in a criminal trial. In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is a preponderance of probabilities, while in a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The acquittal of the respondent in the criminal trial did not conclude the disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry was not governed by proof beyond reasonable doubt or by the rules of evidence which governed the criminal trial. 3. The disciplinary authority had sufficient material to conclude that the connection of the respondent to the incident would affect the reputation of its police force and that the presence of the respondent as a member of the force was not in the interest of public administration.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Ashish Kumar, Milind Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Jasmeet Singh, Saif Ali, Pushpendra S. Bhadoriy, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Ashish Kumar, Milind Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Jasmeet Singh, Saif Ali, Pushpendra S. Bhadoriy, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. State contends preponderance of probabilities governs misconduct — Respondent argues findings were perverse due to reliance on demolished witness testimony and criminal acquittal. (Para 8 , 10 )
3. Disciplinary findings are based on preponderance of probabilities — criminal acquittal due to hostile witnesses does not automatically invalidate findings of misconduct affecting police force reputation. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 34 , 35 )
4. Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probabilities — criminal acquittal without full exoneration does not preclude findings of misconduct in departmental enquiries. (Para 13 , 34 , 35 )
5. Reinstatement order set aside — cessation from service notionally effective upon completion of minimum qualifying service — no back wages — retiral dues to be released. (Para 36 , 37 )
6. What is the difference between the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials?
Criminal trials require proof beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary proceedings are governed by the preponderance of probabilities, meaning the charge must be proved more probable than not. (Para 13 , 29 )
7. Does an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically lead to the reversal of findings in a disciplinary enquiry?
No, acquittal does not automatically invalidate disciplinary findings, especially when based on the benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses, as the standards of proof differ. (Para 13 , 15 , 34 , 35 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review over findings in a disciplinary enquiry?
Courts should not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court but may interfere if findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are disproportionate to the misconduct. (Para 30 , 32 , 33 )
9. What is the significance of an honourable acquittal in the context of reinstatement?
An honourable acquittal occurs when the prosecution miserably fails to prove charges after full consideration; however, without specific service rule provisions, it does not automatically confer a right to reinstatement. (Para 34 )
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
A. The appeal
B. Murder, trial and disciplinary enquiry
C. Submissions of counsel
D. Proof of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings Findings of the disciplinary enquiry
F. The judgment of the Division Bench
G. Evidence in the disciplinary enquiry
H. On a ‘preponderance of probabilities’
I. Judicial review over disciplinary matters
J. The effect of an acquittal
K. Conclusion
A. The appeal
1. This appeal is from a judgment dated 24 April 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The respondent, who was a police constable, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge his dismissal from service after a disciplinary enquiry. A Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 1 February 2018, dismissed the petition. The Division Bench reversed the judgment and concluded that there is no evidence in the disciplinary enquiry to sustain the finding that the respondent committed a murder while on leave from duty. Independently, he has also been acquitted in a Sessions trial on the charge of murder. The Division Bench granted the respondent reinstatement in service with no back wages for the seventeen years that elapsed since his termination. The State comes in appeal.
B. Murder, trial and disciplinary enquiry
2. In 1992, the respondent was appointed as a Constable in the police service of Rajasthan. On 13 August 2002, he proceeded on leave and had to report back on duty on 16 August 2002. He failed to do so and eventually reported for work on 19 August 2020. He sought and was granted permission for over-staying his leave on the ground that his brother-in-law, Shankar Singh had died. On 15 August 2002, one Daulat Singh lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Khamnaur in relation to the death of his brother Bhanwar Singh, caused by an accident with an unknown vehicle. The police initially registered a crime under Sections 209 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code1[“IPC”]. The statements of Daulat Singh, Jodh Singh, Meera and Hamer Singh were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19732[“CrPC”]. It appeared during the course of the investigation that the death was homicidal. The investigation by the police proceeded for an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC. The respondent was arrested on 9 September 2002. There were two co-accused, Lokesh Gurva and Iqbal Khan. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120B. Sessions Case 3 of 2003 was committed for trial to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara.
3. The case of the prosecution was that there was a dispute over land between the respondent and Bhanwar Singh. Moreover, the respondent’s father had been treated for a snake bite by Bhanwar Singh but his witchcraft did not yield result, leading to the death of the father. According to the prosecution, the respondent bore a grudge towards the deceased due to this incident and had proclaimed earlier that he would kill him.
4. During the pendency of the criminal trial, a memorandum was issued on 18 January 2003 to the respondent, followed by a charge-sheet, convening disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 [“the Rules”]. The imputations against the respondent are extracted below, together with the familiar errors of grammar and translation:
“1. That you on 13.08.02 from Station House Officer, P.S. Devgarh got one casual leave and one gazette leave sanctioned and left for your home, as per which you have to attend duty on 16.08.02 at A.M. but you did not attend the duty on time and attended the duty on 19.08.02 after remaining absent for 3 days, which is proved from record.
2. That even during the absence period you did not inform any officer about the reason of your abs
