Burden Of Proof In Departmental Proceedings Is Of 'Probabilities Of Misconduct': Supreme Court

The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is of probabilities of the misconduct, the Supreme Court observed while upholding dismissal of a CRPF Constable.

The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.

Dalbir Singh was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He had allegedly fired from his service revolver on Head Constable Harish Chander and Deputy Commandant Hari Singh resulting in the death of Harish Chander and injuries to Hari Singh. He was convicted by the Trial Court in this court, but the High Court acquitted him granting benefit of doubt.

In the departmental proceedings that followed, the Commandant, punishing authority, returned a finding considering the evidence led by the Department that Singh misused his service weapon and is thus not entitled to be retained in the disciplinary force. Such order was affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority. The High Court set aside these orders.

The Apex Court bench, in appeal filed by Union of India, observed while holding that the he High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review over the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings which were conducted while adhering to the principles of natural justice. The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct, the court said.

"The allegations in the chargesheet that the writ petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence placed before them. It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the principles of natural justice. The best available evidence had been produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry conducted after long lapse of time.", the bench observed while allowing the appeal.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

 Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian