Courts must not interfere with the dismissal order of the Disciplinary authority, which is based on the inquiry

Sarthak Khandelwal | Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law, NMIMS University, Mumbai | 4th January 2020

The State Of Bihar & Ors. vs Phulpari Kumari|Civil Appeal No. 8782 of 2019

Facts of the Case:

The Respondent was appointed as a Child Development Officer on 29^th.June.2011. Sh. Jitendra Rajak filed a complaint against the Respondent to the Vigilance Bureau of Investigation, Patna alleging demand of illegal gratification. And a raid was conducted by the bureau and respondent was caught red-handed while accepting an amount of Rs.40,000/- and after this First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Respondent on 17^th.August.2013.

The Bureau find out that Smt. Suman obtained 62.4 per cent marks. As per the complaint, the Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the appointment of the complainant’s wife, Smt. Suman Kumar. The amount was then reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The complainant approached the Vigilance Bureau and a raid was conducted on 17^th.August.2013 by laying a trap and respondent was caught red-handed. The Respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 10^th. December.2014.

She challenged the order of dismissal by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was allowed by a judgment dated 12^th.December.2017. The learned single Judge after having traversed the fact came to the conclusion that the charge could not be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities inasmuch as no evidence was brought forth to establish the demand of a bribe and its acceptance was also not proved except by the oral testimony of two members of the trap team who had actually not seen the respondent-petitioner taking the bribe.

The State of Bihar then come up with the Letter Patents Appeal(L.P.A) assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition has been allowed and she has been directed to be restored with all consequential benefits. The appeal was entertained and vide order dated 26^th June, 2018.

Main Defences made by the respondent-petitioner in the proceeding was that the complainant whose wife is alleged to have been an aspirant for the post of Anganwari Worker and who had moved the complaint in writing was never produced, the wife of complainant was also not produced during the enquiry proceedings. Thus, the genesis of the complaint which was made the basis for proceeding with the enquiry was not established by any evidence oral or otherwise as neither the complainant nor his wife, who were aggrieved, were produced during the disciplinary proceedings to support the complaint.

The evidence adduced was oral testimony and two of the said witnesses on behalf of the Department, namely, Inspector Sudesh Yadav and Constable Rasid Imam said that they saw the charged officer keeping money on the chair when the raid was conducted. So There was no witness or evidence relating to the demand for the purpose as mentioned in the complaint. In this respect, Shri P.K. Verma addressing  Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 submitted that there is a presumption about the demand having been made and consequently, it was for the respondent-petitioner who had to disprove the fact of the demand being made. But it didn’t made any good as in the case of  Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava AIR 2017 SC 3698 it was held that the presumption of demand by way of burden on the delinquent would arise only after the demand has been proved. 

The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant. The Division Bench proceeded to examine the evidence and held that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was not proved. The submission of the Respondent that she was falsely implicated in a trap case was accepted by the Division Bench.

HELD:

The criminal trial against the Respondent is still pending consideration by a competent criminal Court. The order of dismissal from service of the Respondent was pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against her. The Inquiry Officer examined the evidence and concluded that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Respondent was proved. 

The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in reappreciating the evidence and coming to a conclusion that the evidence on record was not sufficient to point to the guilt of the Respondent. It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.

The standard of proof as required in a criminal trial is not the same in a departmental inquiry. Strict rules of evidence are to be followed by the criminal Court where the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas, preponderance of probabilities is the test adopted in finding the delinquent guilty of the charge.

The High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal of the Respondent by re-examining the evidence and taking a view different from that of the disciplinary authority which was based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside by the Supreme Court and the order of dismissal of the Respondent is upheld. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.