An overview of a significant legal case involving allegations of misconduct against a CRPF constable. The case delves into the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent judicial review by the High Court. Despite the constable’s acquittal in the criminal case, the disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of negligence. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing the distinct standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings. Stay informed about this case and its implications. #SupremeCourt #LegalCase #JudicialReview
Facts
- First Information Report lodged against Constable in CRPF on 20 September 1971.
- Incident occurred on 18 February 1998 where a co-constable was hit by a bullet during cleaning of a carbine in the barracks.
- Co-constable succumbed to injuries sustained in the incident.
- Constable acquitted by Judicial Magistrate on 5 January 2002.
- Constable was tried for an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
- The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge based on the depositions of PW 5 and PW 6 stating that the 9MM carbine was disassembled.
- The disciplinary authority found the charge of misconduct to be sustainable based on the evidence on record.
- Despite retirement, the Division Bench directed that the first respondent be treated in service until reaching superannuation age and be paid full back wages.
- The High Court, in the writ appeal judgment, highlighted that the charge of misconduct was contradicted by the depositions of PW 5 and PW 6, mentioning the disassembled carbine during cleaning.
- There was a lack of evidence supporting the misconduct finding, and the departmental proceedings were deemed unsustainable after the first respondent’s acquittal in the criminal case.
Also Read: Railway Compensation Case: Supreme Court Judgment
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Division Bench of the High Court made a serious error in overturning the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge.
- The counsel emphasized that the charge of misconduct against the first respondent was proven in the disciplinary enquiry.
- It was highlighted that the first respondent was found in possession of a carbine assigned for official duties, which discharged accidentally in the men’s barracks, resulting in the death of a colleague.
- The argument presented was that the established negligence clearly warranted dismissal from service.
- A distinction was made between the standard of proof required in criminal cases (beyond reasonable doubt) and disciplinary proceedings (preponderance of probability).
- The counsel contended that the High Court’s interference with the disciplinary jurisdiction was erroneous in this case.
- On the contrary, the counsel representing the first respondent relied on the Judicial Magistrate’s decision acquitting the first respondent of criminal charges under Section 304 of the IPC.
- Judgment of acquittal indicates no substance in the case of rash and negligent act against the first respondent
- First respondent has retired from service
- Request for release of first respondent’s pensionary dues
Also Read: Scheduled Castes Reservations: Sub-Classification Dispute
Analysis
- A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case.
- The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
- In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
- The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to determine if an employee has breached service rules.
- The High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence from the disciplinary enquiry.
- Judicial review against a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry focuses on whether the finding is sustainable with reference to evidence on the record.
- Interference by the High Court is only allowed when the finding is based on no evidence, rendering it perverse.
- The High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary enquiry, especially when the Single Judge found no irregularity in the enquiry.
- Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate a finding of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings.
- Certain material facts in the case are not in dispute.
- The charge of misconduct was based on the negligence of the first respondent in handling his weapon and failure to comply with departmental instructions.
- The acquittal in the criminal case did not justify setting aside the penalty imposed during the disciplinary enquiry.
- Judicial review in disciplinary matters is guided by specific parameters.
- The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was deemed unsustainable in this context.
Also Read: Case Summary: Bar Council of India vs. State Bar Councils
Decision
- Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside.
- Judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition maintained.
- No order as to costs.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. SITARAM MISHRA AND ANR
Case Number: C.A. No.-006183-006183 / 2010
