Disciplinary Proceedings are not that of a Quasi-Criminal Nature and doesn’t follow the rules of Criminal Jurisprudence

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 26th December 2019

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. V/s. Heera Singh Parihar CIVIL APPEAL NO 9520 OF 2019

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The alleged incident took place on 4^th January 2005 at about 19.30 hrs, when the Respondent Accused entered the time-keepers room where the Assistant Regional Manager was discussing the time-table of the depot.
2. The respondent on his entrance in the room started to abused his colleague driver and also assaulted him in that time frame.
3. In this respect, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 12^th January 2005. The inquiry officer came to the conclusion that charges were proved and submitted an inquiry report on 01^st April 2005. A notice of show cause was issued by the Regional Manager on 30 April 2005. The disciplinary authority, after cause was shown, came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was proved and accordingly, by its order dated 26 August 2005, imposed a penalty of the stoppage of eight increments.
4. The order of imposition of penalty was challenged before the Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand which upheld the decision.
5. The aggrieved then approached the High Court for redressal of his grievance and challenged the penalty imposition order, which was set-aside by the High Court stating that the disciplinary proceedings are of a Quasi-criminal nature and also the fact of the matter is that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the complainant himself i.e. Sri Nand Kishor.”
6. Thus, the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order of the High Court dated 10^th October 2018, by presentation of the present appeal.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated at the instance of the employer is of Quasi-criminal nature and is thus bound by the principles & standard of proof by the criminal law?
2. Whether the High Court was in haste by providing a single sentence to set-aside the order of penalty and erred in true letter & spirit?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set-aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, setting the following legal matrix in this aspect:

1. “Disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal in nature. A disciplinary inquiry is conducted by the employer to inquire into a charge or misconduct pertaining to a breach of the rules and regulations governing the service of the employer. The standard of proof is not that governed by a criminal trial. In exercising judicial review, the test is whether the findings are based on some evidence. The High Court may interfere with only in a case where there is no evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct.”
2. “The High Court has evidently acted with haste and ignored the fact that besides the driver who was assaulted, there was other evidence which had been adduced during the course of the disciplinary inquiry which supported the charge of misconduct.”
3. “It is true that the colleague of the respondent who is alleged to have been abused and assaulted by the complaint changed his version. But, the evidence of the Assistant Regional Manager and the Station in-charge, as noted in the report of inquiring officer, both of whom were present on the spot and gave accounts of what had transpired, the charge of misconduct stood proved. It cannot be held that the punishment imposed was either disproportionate or arbitrary.”