Inquiry Report Against Delinquent Employee Should Be Based On Substantive Evidence: Gauhati High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of CRPF Personnel
The Gauhati High Court recently upheld a single bench decision which quashed and set aside the dismissal of a CRPF personnel on the ground that the findings of inquiry officer were not based on any substantial evidence and the said personnel was not given opportunity of being defended. The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia...
The Gauhati High Court recently upheld a single bench decision which quashed and set aside the dismissal of a CRPF personnel on the ground that the findings of inquiry officer were not based on any substantial evidence and the said personnel was not given opportunity of being defended.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed:
“The Commandant, vide order dated 30.09.2008, accepted the findings of the inquiry report without any significant discussion and also placed reliance on the admission made by the Delinquent Officer (DO). It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer were not based on any substantive evidence. The confession/admission of the DO could not have been admitted and read against him because he was not provided any defence assistance and furthermore, the confession was extracted in Hindi which admittedly was not a language with which the DO was conversant.”
The charge against the respondent-personnel was that he, while proceeding on 15 days casual leave from June 6, 2008 onwards, was found in possession of 23 live rounds of 5.56 Insas Rifle at the Jammu Railway station when search was taken by the RPF and local police officials of his luggage. It was further alleged that respondent-personnel did not furnish the information to his higher authorities regarding illegal retention of 23 live rounds of 5.56 Insas Rifle.
A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent in which the charges were proved against him beyond reasonable doubt.
The disciplinary authority vide order dated September 30, 2008 removed the respondent from the service after accepting the findings in the inquiry report.
The respondent challenged the order of removal from service before the High Court. The High Court vide judgment and final order dated January 18, 2018 quashed the order by which the respondent was removed from service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that conclusion arrived in the disciplinary proceeding was not based on any relevant evidence.
The Union of India filed an intra-court appeal against the impugned judgment of the single judge bench.
The Deputy Solicitor General of India, R.K.D. Choudhury argued before the division bench that the standard of proof required to bring home the charges in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be equated with that required to bring home the charges in a criminal trial.
He further submitted that charges in disciplinary proceedings can be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities. It was contended by the Dy. SGI that Single Judge Bench was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions upon the conclusions drawn in the inquiry report and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The Court noted that neither the FIR (if any) registered after the seizure nor the seizure memo whereby the live rounds were allegedly recovered were proved during the course of enquiry.
The Court further observed:
“No documentary evidence was brought on record to prove that the recovered ammunition was taken into possession by the CRPF authorities. We have been taken through the evidence of the six witnesses examined during the course of the enquiry. None of these witnesses was present at the time when the seizure was allegedly made from the baggage of the DO at the Jammu Railway station. It is not in dispute that no defence assistance was provided to the DO as warranted by Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.”
It was further pointed by the Court that the statement of the respondent which was treated as his confession, was recorded in Hindi, however, the respondent has only rudimentary knowledge of Hindi.
“Thus, manifestly the confessional statement could not have been admitted in evidence more so because the DO was not provided any defence assistance. In addition thereto, upon a perusal of the departmental enquiry report, which has been extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the Inquiry Officer did not give any reference to either the statement of the witnesses examined or the statement/contention of the DO while concluding that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of probabilities”, the Court said.
Thus, the Court upheld the judgment and order of the single judge bench which set aside the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent for being based on no evidence and also being tainted by the denial of opportunity of being defended.
Case Title: The Union of India & Ors. v. Saran Narzary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
Coram: The Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia