Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dalbir Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.5848 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 24095 of 2019)
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 302 , 207 – Arms Act - Section 27 – Service revolver – Misconduct – Dismissal from service – Offence of Murder - Petitioner fired from his service revolver on Head Constable and Deputy Commandant resulting in death of Head Constable and injuries to Deputy Commandant - Convicted by learned trial court - In appeal, High Court acquitted him of charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt for reason that 20 cartridges were fired but only 7 empties were recovered whereas none of bullets have been recovered - The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and rules governing enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed - A false case has been made against him. His further stand is that it was a terrorist attack and terrorists have fired on the Camp - None of departmental witnesses have been even suggested about any terrorist attack - Order passed by High Court is not sustainable same is set aside and order of punishment of dismissal passed as affirmed in appeal and revision stands restored - Hence Appeal allowed. (Paras 29 and 30)
Facts of the Case:
Whether service rifle was issued - When first charge sheet was issued, writ petitioner was not on duty as he was to perform fatigue duty but he sat in a tailor shop instead - Petitioner was accused to have fired from his service revolver on Head Constable and Deputy Commandant resulting in death of Head Constable and injuries to Deputy Commandant - Convicted by learned trial court - However, in appeal, High Court acquitted him of charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt for reason that 20 cartridges were fired but only 7 empties were recovered whereas none of the bullets have been recovered.
Finding of the Court:
Court found that this contradicts with the charges mentioned in charge sheet that while on duty, he misused ‘government weapon - Writ petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by Departmental Authorities on basis of evidence placed before them. It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is not case of writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or violation of principles of natural justice. The best available evidence had been produced by appellants in the course of enquiry conducted after long lapse of time – Court find that the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. Hence, same is set aside and order of punishment of dismissal passed as affirmed in appeal and revision stands restored.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
Key Points: - The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that an individual receives fair treatment, not to ensure that the conclusion reached by the authority is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. (!) - Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. (!) - A court may interfere with a disciplinary finding if the proceedings were inconsistent with the rules of natural justice, in violation of statutory rules, or if the conclusion is based on no evidence. (!) - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on preponderance of probability, not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) - The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts; adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be challenged before a court. (!) - The acquittal of an employee in a criminal trial does not preclude an employer from taking disciplinary action for the same conduct, as the two proceedings are entirely distinct. (!) (!) - The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings in a disciplinary proceeding. (!) - The High Court's conclusion that the charges were based on "no evidence" was incorrect, as the department provided oral testimony from multiple witnesses. (!)
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal whereby the order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority on 24.5.2014, appellate order dated 9.10.2014, and revisional order dated 13.2.2015 were set aside. The respondent1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioner’] was hence directed to be reinstated and also was found entitled to arrears of pay from the date of dismissal of service till the date he actually joins the duty.
3. The writ petitioner was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). An FIR No. 16/1993 was lodged against the writ petitioner for an offence under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[For short, the ‘IPC’] and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 when the writ petitioner was accused to have fired from his service revolver on Head Constable Shri Harish Chander and Deputy Commandant Shri Hari Singh resulting in the death of Shri Harish Chander and injuries to Shri Hari Singh. The writ petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court on 11.3.1996 and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, in appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted him of the charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt for the reason that 20 cartridges were fired but only 7 empties were recovered whereas none of the bullets have been recovered. In view of the said finding, the High Court doubted the prosecution version as the Investigating Agency had failed to collect the evidence. Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2006 filed by the State was dismissed by this Court relying upon the aforesaid finding of the High Court.
4. The writ petitioner was initially served with a chargesheet on 27.6.1993. Article-I from the Statement of Article of charges reads thus :
That the said No.880957136 Ct. Dalbir Singh of D/36 BN CRPF while functioning as CT(GD) at BN HQ Fatehbad on 11.04.1993 has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as member of the force U/s 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he has committed misconduct and disobedience of lawful orders and refused to perform fatigue duty between 0900 hrs. to 1000 hrs.”
5. In the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the above said Article of charge, it was stated that the writ petitioner returned to the Unit Headquarter after 60 days of earned leave on 10.4.1993 and was detailed for fatigue duty. Instead of performing such fatigue duty, the writ petitioner sat at the tailor shop. BHM Harish Chandra asked for non-compliance of the orders, the writ petitioner however arrogantly misbehaved with the officers. It is admitted that the proceedings of the chargesheet were not concluded.
6. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.12.1996 on account of his conviction in the criminal trial in pursuance of the FIR lodged. However, since he was granted benefit of doubt in appeal by the High Court and was subsequently acquitted, the writ petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 20.7.2012 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna. The following were the directions issued in the order of reinstatement:
(ii) The appellant No. 880957136 CT/GD Dalbir Singh of 36BN, CRPF is reinstated into service immediate effect (i.e. from the date of reporting in 36BN).
(iii) Since the appellant i.e. Ex. CT/GD Dalbir Singh has been acquitted by criminal court, he shall not be punished departmentally on the same charge or similar charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case Rule 27 (ccc) of CRPF Rules, 1955. If some other misconduct on other ground is made out then it is upto disciplinary authority to decide whether any Departmental Enqu
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
