Principles governing disciplinary enquiry different from criminal trial; proof beyond reasonable doubt not needed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that rules of evidence that apply towards criminal trials are distinct from those governing a disciplinary enquiry [State of Karnataka vs Umesh]..A Bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in exercise of a disciplinary jurisdiction.“Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities,” the Court held. The top court accordingly held that courts in exercise of judicial review powers in disciplinary cases must restrict to determine only the following: “(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct..The case concerned a village accountant, the present respondent, who was charged with bribery under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Owing to benefit of doubt, he was acquitted by the Special Judge at Bijapur. The respondent took phenolphthalein-powered currency notes that were seized from him and this was prima facie established. The Upa-Lokayukta 1 recommended the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Karnataka Lokayukta Ac. Subsequently, after the enquiry, he was held to be guilty of misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1966. The penalty of compulsory retirement from the service was recommended by the Lokayukta. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent. The respondent had submitted that the money seized was not received as a bribe but was for repayment of a loan borrowed by the brother-in-law of the complainant. It was submitted that the acquittal by the Special Judge proved that there was no ground to hold him guilty of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. Rejecting this line of argument of the respondent, the disciplinary authority held that he was guilty of misconduct and compulsory retirement was imposed. .The respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea. The Tribunal held that the disciplinary proceedings are not dependent on the verdict in a criminal case and strict rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. Even hearsay evidence in acceptable in disciplinary cases, if it has nexus with the facts of the case, the Tribunal emphasised..Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court and the following issue was framed by the High Court: “Whether the order of the Disciplinary authority in holding the petitioner guilty of charges despite a finding by a criminal Court acquitting him of the similar charges on the basis of similar set of evidence was justified?” .The High Court allowed the petition and ruled in the favour of the respondent. The High Court held that there was no corroborative evidence to prove the commission of the offence, and the deposition of a shadow witness and averments in the complaint was undertaken by the Enquiry Officer, which made the evidence not tangible. .The State of Karnataka then approached the Supreme Court in appeal. .The top court observed that the inquiry officer noticed that the evidence of Prosecution Witness 2 who was the shadow witness, was “very important” as he was present at the time of the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the respondent..The Court relied on its judgment in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh which was delivered by Justice Krishna Iyer wherein it was held that,”It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” .The Court, therefore, held that the Division Bench of the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 stepped into a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer, who conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. .“The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding,” the Court held. The Bench emphaised that the rule against hearsay evidence in disciplinary proceedings do not rely on the principle of prove beyond reasonable doubt as the “purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment”..The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the respondent was held guilty of misconduct, and the punishment of compulsory retirement was restored. .Advocate V N Raghupathy appeared for State of Karnataka while advocate Ashwin V Kotemath appeared for the respondent. [Read Judgment]

Principles governing disciplinary enquiry different from criminal trial; proof beyond reasonable doubt not needed: Supreme Court

Chaitanya Singh

Related Stories