2025 INSC 149 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8414 OF 2017

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant appeal by special leave preferred by the

appellant

1 takes exception to the judgment dated 1

st March, 2012

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta

2 in an

intra-court writ appeal

3, whereby the Division Bench allowed the

appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

1

Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Authority”.

2

Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.

3

Tender of Mandamus Appeal (MAT) No. 1311 of 2011.

2

The learned Single Judge vide order

4 dated 29

th June, 2011,

upheld the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon

the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently

confirmed by the sub-committee while acting as the Appellate

Authority.

Brief Facts:-

3. The respondent, while working with the appellant-Authority

as an Assistant Engineer (Civil), was arrested along with a co-

employee, who was working as a Junior Engineer in the appellant-

Authority, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read

with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

5

and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the allegations

of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the

representative of a contractor. Pursuant to the aforesaid arrest,

both of them were suspended and a CBI Case

6 was registered

against them. The learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Alipore

7, vide

order dated 10

th December, 1999, found the respondent guilty for

the above-mentioned offences. On the contrary, the co-

4

Writ Petition No. 9701(W) of 2010.

5

For short “PC Act”.

6

Special Case No. 8 of 1993.

7

For short “CBI Court”.

3

accused(Junior Engineer) was acquitted by the CBI Court.

Aggrieved by his conviction, the respondent preferred a criminal

appeal

8 before the High Court.

4. While the criminal appeal was pending before the High Court,

the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 13

th July, 2000,

dispensed with the enquiry and ordered dismissal of the

respondent from service relying on the CBI Court’s order .

Aggrieved by his dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before

the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected. Thereupon, the

respondent preferred a writ petition

9 before the High Court

challenging the order of dismissal. The same was disposed of by

the High Court vide order dated 5

th February, 2001, with a

direction that if the respondent is acquitted in the pending

criminal appeal, then it would be open for him to make an

appropriate representation before the appellant-Authority to

reconsider the dismissal order, which would, in turn, be decided

in accordance with law.

5. Vide judgment dated 16

th July, 2004, the criminal appeal

preferred by the respondent was ultimately allowed by the High

8

Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1999.

9

Writ Petition No. 22034(W) of 2000.

4

Court, and his conviction and sentence was set aside. Based on

his acquittal, the respondent filed a representation before the

appellant-Authority seeking reinstatement in service, in terms of

the order dated 5

th February, 2001 passed by the High Court in

W.P. No. 22034(W) of 2000. However, the appellant-Authority

rejected the respondent’s representation. Aggrieved, the

respondent filed a writ petition

10, which came to be disposed of by

the High Court vide order dated 22

nd December, 2004, directing

the Chairman of appellant-Authority to reconsider the grievances

of the respondent by granting him an opportunity of hearing.

6. In compliance with the order dated 22

nd December, 2004, the

Chairman of the appellant-Authority heard the respondent and

vide order dated 24

th March, 2005, directed that a fresh

disciplinary proceeding for major penalty of dismissal from service

should be initiated against the respondent under the Airport

Authority of India Employees (CDA) Regulations, 2003. The

Chairman was of the opinion that the High Court had set aside the

conviction of the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt and

hence, it was not an honourable acquittal. The Chairman,

therefore, set aside the respondent’s order of dismissal dated 13

th

10

Writ Petition No. 21324(W) of 2004.

5

July, 2000 and placed him under deemed suspension with effect

from the said date. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred another

writ petition

11 and prayed to set aside the aforesaid order passed

by the Chairman and to restrain the appellant-Authority from

initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against him. During the

pendency of this writ petition, a memorandum of charge dated 7

th

September, 2005 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority

proposing to hold an enquiry against the respondent. The High

Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 23

rd February,

2007, whereby it quashed and set aside the order of suspension

as well as the memorandum of charge, and directed the appellant-

Authority to reinstate the respondent.

7. The appellant-Authority challenged this order by filing an

intra-court appeal

12, which was allowed by the Division Bench vide

order dated 6

th August, 2007, holding that it was imperative for

the appellant-Authority to hold a departmental enquiry and, thus,

the appellant-Authority was fully justified in issuing a fresh

chargesheet against the respondent, since his acquittal was based

11

Writ Petition No. 8256(W) of 2005.

12

Tender of Mandamus Appeal No. 1840 of 2007.

6

on the benefit of doubt on account of insufficient evidence rather

than being an honourable one.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 6

th August, 2007, the

respondent filed a special leave petition

13 before this Court, which

came to be dismissed vide order dated 29

th February, 2008, with a

direction that the disciplinary proceedings pending against the

respondent be expedited.

9. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and

submitted an enquiry report, observing therein that the

respondent had shown negligence in the performance of his duties,

exhibited a lack of integrity, and acted in a manner unbecoming of

an employee of the appellant-Authority. The Enquiry Officer’s

report also concluded that the respondent had demanded a bribe

of Rs.6000/- from the contractor who paid Rs. 3000/- as the first

instalment, and the remaining sum of Rs. 3000/- as the second

instalment.

10. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and

imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service on the

respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an intra-departmental

13

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 496 of 2008.

7

appeal before the Chairman, which was rejected vide order dated

3

rd August, 2009. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent

instituted another writ petition

14, asserting that the Chairman, in

his capacity as the Appellate Authority, was not competent to take

a decision as against the appellant, as he had also acted as the

Disciplinary Authority in the past proceedings. The High Court,

vide order dated 26

th October, 2009, allowed the writ petition and

issued directions to the appellant-Authority to form a sub-

committee from amongst the Board Members to act as the

Appellate Authority and decide the appeal preferred by the

respondent.

11. Accordingly, in terms of the order dated 26

th October, 2009,

a sub-committee was constituted which considered the appeal

preferred by the respondent and affirmed the decision taken by the

Disciplinary Authority concluding that there was no merit in the

Departmental Appeal filed by the delinquent employee(respondent

herein). Aggrieved by the order of sub-committee, the respondent

filed a writ petition

15 before the High Court, which came to be

dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 29

th June,

14

Writ Petition No. 17503(W) of 2009.

15

Writ Petition No. 9701(W) of 2010.

8

2011. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an intra-court writ

appeal

16, which was allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment

dated 1

st March, 2012 which is subjected to challenge by the

appellant-Authority in this appeal by special leave.

12. While entertaining the SLP, this Court had granted a stay on

the impugned judgment of the High Court vide order dated 16

th

March, 2012.

Submission on behalf of the appellant-Authority:-

13. Shri KM Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the

appellant-Authority, submitted that the Division Bench of the High

Court failed to appreciate the law with respect to appreciation of

evidence and the standard of proof required for proving the charges

against a delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry. He

urged that the standard of proof required to bring home the charge

in a disciplinary enquiry is entirely different from that required in

a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution

is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt, whereas, in a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof

is that of preponderance of probabilities. He further urged that

16

Tender of Mandamus(MAT) Appeal No. 1311 of 2011.

9

there are no strict rules of evidence that govern the departmental

proceedings and thus, a major penalty can be imposed on the

delinquent employee merely on a finding recorded on the basis of

preponderance of probabilities.

14. Learned counsel urged that in the instant case, the acquittal

of the respondent in the criminal appeal

17 decided by the High

Court was not an honourable and that of complete exoneration,

i.e., one based on the finding of innocence, rather it was based on

benefit of doubt and insufficient evidence. The High Court also

reiterated the same in its judgment and order dated 6

th August

2007 passed in MAT No. 1840 of 2007, preferred by the appellant-

Authority. Further, a Special Leave Petition

18 filed against the said

order by the respondent, was also dismissed by this Court vide its

order dated 29

th February, 2008.

15. Learned counsel contended that the High Court grossly erred

and acted in contravention of the limitations governing the exercise

of the writ jurisdiction while re-appreciating the evidence and by

delving into the evidentiary value of the report of the Enquiry

Officer. He submitted that in an intra-court writ appeal, the High

17

Supra note 8.

18

Supra note 13.

10

Court cannot delve into a detailed re-evaluation of evidence and,

more significantly, there must exist an issue of law that calls for

interference in the appellate jurisdiction. Once the learned Single

Judge while exercising the writ jurisdiction concluded that the

Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry as per the procedure

prescribed by law by granting an opportunity of hearing to the

respondent, it was not permissible for the Division Bench

exercising the intra-court appellate jurisdiction to disturb or

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by re-

appreciating the facts and evidence.

16. He further submitted that the High Court was wholly

unjustified in arriving at the finding of bias against the

Disciplinary Authority, when the said Disciplinary Authority did

not, in fact, acted as the Appellate Authority in view of the order

dated 26

th October, 2009 passed by the High Court in the earlier

round of litigation. Pursuant to this order, a special sub-committee

was constituted to hear the appeal preferred by the respondent,

and the appeal was not heard individually by the Chairman of the

appellant-Authority who had previously acted as the Disciplinary

Authority.

11

17. He further submitted that the High Court erred in holding

that while considering the charges levelled against the respondent,

the Enquiry Officer ought to have relied upon the findings of the

criminal Court with respect to the evidence of PW-2, i.e., DN

Biswas (Trap Laying Officer) and PW-3, i.e., MK Bagchi (Executive

Engineer). He urged that there is no legal bar against the Enquiry

Officer to arrive at a finding different from that of the criminal

Court even though the factual allegations, witnesses and

documents in both the proceedings may be common.

18. Learned counsel further urged that the Division Bench fell in

grave error in concluding that the proceedings before the

Disciplinary Authority were vitiated due to the non-examination of

the complainant from whom the respondent accepted the illegal

gratification. He submitted that PW-2, i.e., DN Biswas (Trap Laying

Officer), was examined before the Enquiry Officer, and his

testimony was sufficient to prove the charges of bribery levelled

against the respondent.

19. He further contended that the Division Bench relied upon the

judgment of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat

19 to hold that the

19

(2006) 5 SCC 446.

12

findings recorded in the judgment of the Criminal Appellate Court

would be binding on the Disciplinary Authority. The observations

in the impugned judgment as referred to by the learned counsel

are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“Going through the available records and specially scrutinising

the enquiry report, we find that the Enquiry Officer mainly

relying on the evidence of P.W.2 held the appellant guilty of the

charges ignoring the judicial findings of the Criminal Court.

The Enquiry Officer furthermore, did not properly appreciate

the evidence adduced by P.W.3. It appears from the evidence

on record that P.W. 3 instructed the appellant to withhold a

sum of Rs. 2000/- from the first running bill of the Contractor

due to slow progress of work. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the appellant herein was responsible for non-payment of the

bills of the Contractor in time. The conduct of the Contractor

should also be taken into consideration specially when we find

that the Superior Authority like P.W. 3 was compelled to issue

instruction for withholding of the running bill of the said

Contractor. In any event, the Enquiry Officer cannot overreach

the judicial findings in respect of P.W.2. The Enquiry Officer

relied on the evidence of P.W.2 (D. N. Biswas) for the purpose

of holding the appellant guilty of the charges, not remembering

that the evidence of P.W. 2 has not been accepted by the

Criminal Court. In the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat

& Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the

findings of the Judicial Authority should prevail upon the

findings of the Disciplinary Authority on any particular issue.

In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer did not adhere to the

aforesaid principle as specifically laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra).”

Learned Counsel submitted that the issue regarding the

applicability of the judgment delivered by this Court in G.M. Tank

(supra) to the case at hand was no longer res integra because in

the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench had already

13

concluded that G.M. Tank’s case would not be applicable in the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

20. Learned counsel relied upon the observations made by the

Division Bench of the High Court in MAT No. 1840 of 2007 decided

on 6

th August, 2007 and urged that the Division Bench while

rendering the impugned judgment has impliedly overruled

pertinent findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier

round of litigation which stood affirmed by this Court vide

judgment dated 29

th February, 2008. The relevant observations

from the judgment dated 6

th August, 2007 read as under:-

“Likewise, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the

appellant for the alleged charges punishable under the

provisions of the PC Act on the same set of facts and evidence.

It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the

criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set

of facts and evidence. The appellant has been honourably

acquitted by the competent court on the same set of facts,

evidence and witness and, therefore, the dismissal order

based on the same set of facts and evidence on the

departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of

justice. “Such is not a situation in the present case. In our

opinion the present is not a case of no evidence; it is a case

of not sufficient evidence. There is a clear distinction

between the two situations. Therefore, in our opinion, the

observations in G.M. Tank's case (supra) would not be

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present

case. In this case, before concluding that it is necessary to hold

a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has also

considered the observations made by the Appeal Court to the

effect that due to non-mentioning of arrangement to keep the

flush door open in the pre-trap memo, it could hardly be

accepted that such arrangement was made for keeping the door

14

partly open. The Disciplinary Authority was certainly aware of

the entire reasoning of the Appellate Court. The Disciplinary

Authority was aware of the conclusion of the Appellate Court

that “hardly, I find any material to place reliance on such

evidence so as to hold that really some sort of shady

transaction as has been alleged from the side of prosecution

was going on between the petitioner and P.W. -1.” The

Disciplinary Authority also notices that, in conclusion it is

observed by the Court of Appeal that the present case casts

“serious doubt” on the allegation. On a very close scrutiny of

the entire matter the Disciplinary Authority has concluded

that it would not amount to an honourable acquittal. We

are inclined to accept the reasons of the Disciplinary

Authority, as we are also of the opinion that this acquittal

can hardly be equated with the declaration of innocence of

the respondent. In view of the above, we hold that the

appellants are justified in issuing a charge-sheet to the

respondent.”

(emphasis supplied)

On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant implored

the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment,

and restore the judgment of the learned Single Bench and the

penalty of dismissal from service as awarded to the respondent by

the Departmental Authorities.

Submission on behalf of the respondent-employee:-

21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel

for the appellant-Authority and contended that the original

complainant was neither the contractor nor an authorised person

of the contractor. He submitted that the original complainant had

15

claimed himself to be the authorised representative of the

contractor company, however, he ha d neither produced any

authorisation nor provided any proof of identity showing that he

was under the employment of the contractor.

22. Learned counsel drew this Court’s attention to the specific

finding in the impugned judgment with regard to the statement of

PW-3, i.e., MK Bagchi, then working as Executive Engineer in the

appellant-Authority, wherein he admitted in his cross-examination

that the respondent had no role to play in preparing the bills and

the direction to withhold the payment of Rs. 2000/- from the first

running bill was given by PW -3 himself. He urged that the

respondent was an Assistant Engineer who had no role to play in

the preparation of bills and therefore, there was no possibility of

the respondent demanding any bribe for the preparation of bills.

23. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent could

not have been made to undergo disciplinary enquiry proceedings

on the very same charges which were the subject matter of the

criminal proceedings because in the criminal case, the High Court

had ultimately granted acquittal to the appellant vide judgment

dated 16

th July, 2004 and hence, the Disciplinary Authority was

under an obligation to treat the findings of fact on same issues,

16

recorded by the High Court in its criminal appellate jurisdiction,

at a higher pedestal while considering the enquiry report

submitted by the Enquiry Officer.

He concluded his submissions by urging that the non-

examination of the complainant, i.e., the respondent in the enquiry

proceedings is fatal to the case of the appellant-Authority and

hence, the Division Bench was wholly justified in interfering with

the order of the Single Judge by setting aside the orders passed by

the Disciplinary Authority and further confirmed by the Appellate

Authority. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that the impugned judgment is unassailable in facts as

well as in law and implored the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Discussion and Conclusion: -

24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

placed before us.

25. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on

the charge of accepting illegal gratification during the course of

discharge of his official duties. In view of the conviction and

sentence awarded by the CBI Court vide judgment dated 10

th

17

December, 1999, the enquiry was dispensed with and the

respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 13

th July,

2000. Aggrieved, a criminal appeal was preferred by the

respondent which came to be accepted by the High Court, vide

judgment dated 16

th July, 2004, and the respondent was acquitted

of the charges levelled against him by giving him the benefit of

doubt. Thereafter, the respondent availed of the remedy given to

him in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., to revive the challenge to

the order of dismissal by filing a representation with the appellant-

Authority. The Appellate Authority gave an opportunity of personal

hearing to the respondent and vide order dated 24

th March, 2005,

the order of dismissal dated 13

th July, 2000 was set aside,

however, the respondent was placed under deemed suspension

with effect from 13

th July, 2000. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a

writ petition

20 before the High Court, assailing the order dated 24

th

March, 2005, and seeking a direction to restrain the Authority

from initiating fresh departmental proceedings and quash the

memorandum of charge dated 7

th September, 2005 issued against

him. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned

Single Judge vide order dated 23

rd February, 2007.

20

Supra note 11.

18

26. The appellant-Authority preferred a writ appeal

21 against the

aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge which came to be

allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 6

th August, 2007

with the following pertinent findings: -

(i) That the decision taken by the appellant-Authority to

initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent is

unassailable;

(ii) The finding of the learned Single Judge, that in case the

appellant-Authority is permitted to hold enquiry into the

charges, it would be giving an opportunity to the employer

to sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the High Court

in criminal appeal

22 decided vide judgment dated 16

th July,

2004, was erroneous;

(iii) The two proceedings, i.e., the criminal trial and domestic

enquiry, in which the same evidence is to be evaluated, is

distinct from each other. Therefore, even if the Enquiry

Officer comes to a different conclusion, it would not be a

21

Supra note 12.

22

Supra note 8.

19

reflection on the findings given by a Judge in a criminal trial,

be that a trial Court or the High Court as a Court of Appeal;

(iv) Many witnesses have consistently narrated about the

confession made by the respondent before the CBI at the

time of the raid itself. The Enquiry Officer would have to

assess the evidentiary value of the evidence given by the

witnesses examined in their enquiry proceedings. This

evidence may be inadmissible in a criminal trial, but the

strict rules of evidence do not apply to the departmental

proceedings. Department witnesses, including PW-1, i.e.,

Mr. S.K. Dasgupta (Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Economic Offences Wing and Detective Department) and

PW-4, i.e., Mr. Pijush Ghata (Chance Witness) has

categorically stated that the respondent had taken money

from the decoy;

(v) The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh

23

to hold that even a confession made by the employee could

23

(2006) 4 SCC 265.

20

be admitted in evidence, in departmental inquiries and

observed:-

“In view of the aforesaid statement of law it becomes obvious

that the Enquiry Officer would be entitled to take into

consideration the confession made by the petitioner before

the CBI. Even though, the same was not relied upon by the

Criminal Court in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 162 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. This bar is not applicable in

departmental proceedings. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer

would be entitled to take into consideration the evidentiary

value of the confession made by the respondent.

The other instance that seems to have weighed with the

Appellate Court is that there is no mention in the pre-raid

memo with regard to the arrangement having been made for

the door being kept open. Again the evidence on this may not

have been sufficient to say that the fact has been proved

beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, but the Enquiry

Officer would have to look at the evidence on the basis of

preponderance of probabilities. P.W.-12, the leader of the

CBI Trap-party, has categorically stated “that he made an

arrangement to keep the door of the chamber of Accused

No.1 partly opened so that one can see inside the chamber

from the outside.” The statement of P.W.1 is corroborated by

the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who stated in their

evidence that they witnessed the transaction of bribe from

outside the chamber as the door of the chamber was partly

opened. He found that the evidence given by the leader of the

Trap-party is corroborated by the contents of Post-Trap

Memorandum (Ext.4). In this Memor andum it is

categorically stated that P.W.-12 made arrangement to keep

the door of the chamber partly open. The Trial Court after

assessing entire evidence came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt. From the above it would become

apparent that this cannot be said to be a case of no

evidence. It cannot be said that even if the entire

evidence is accepted as true, it would still lead to the

conclusion that the respondent No.1 was innocent of

having committed any crime. We, therefore, hold that

initiation of the departmental proceedings against the

respondent No.1 cannot be said to be vitiated or without

jurisdiction.”

(emphasis supplied)

21

(vii) The Division Bench also held that the ratio of this

Court’s judgment in G.M. Tank (supra) would not apply to the

case at hand.

The said judgment of the Division Bench has been affirmed by

this Court with the dismissal of the special leave petition

24 filed by

the respondent. Hence, these findings recorded by the Division

Bench of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation have

attained finality inter se amongst the parties.

27. The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, while

allowing the writ appeal

25 filed by respondent, virtually overturned

these pertinent findings recorded in the judgment dated 6

th

August, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench in the earlier round

of litigation, despite such judgment having attained finality.

Hence, on this count alone, the impugned judgment dated 1

st

March, 2012, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

28. Further, we are unable to sustain the finding of the Division

Bench that the non-examination of the complainant is fatal to the

case of the appellant-Authority. It is well settled principle of law

that even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance

24

Supra note 13.

25

Tender of Mandamus Appeal No. 1311 of 2011.

22

of illegal gratification, the courts are empowered to record

conviction, where the decoy turns hostile, and the prosecution

case is based purely on the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and

the trap witnesses. In this regard, we are benefited by the

judgment of this Court in Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v.

State of Gujarat,

26 wherein it was held thus:

“7. . . . It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this

Court that while in the case of evidence of an accomplice, no

conviction can be based on his evidence unless it is

corroborated in material particulars but as regards the evidence

of a partisan witness it is open to a court to convict an accused

person solely on the basis of that evidence, if it is satisfied that

that evidence is reliable. . . .”

29. In the case at hand, the subject matter concerns a domestic

enquiry, where the strict rules of evidence prohibiting admissibility

of confessional statements recorded by the police officials do not

apply. Likewise, non-examination of the decoy cannot be treated

to be fatal in the domestic enquiry where other evidence indicts the

delinquent officer. As has been held by this Court in the case of

Narender Singh(supra), even a confession of the delinquent

employee recorded by the Trap Laying Officer during the criminal

investigation can be relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

26

1968 SCC OnLine SC 81.

23

30. It is pertinent to note that the Trap Laying officer i.e., DN

Biswas was examined during the course of disciplinary

proceedings as PW-2, and he supported the case of the appellant-

Authority to the hilt. The evidence of PW-2 was substantially

corroborated by the other departmental witnesses including PW-1,

i.e., Mr. S.K. Dasgupta (Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Economic Offences Wing and Detective Department) and PW -3,

i.e., Mr. M.K. Bagchi (Executive Engineer). Thus, the Division

Bench clearly erred in holding that non-examination of the

complainant was fatal to the disciplinary proceedings conducted

by the appellant-Authority.

31. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment, further

observed that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate

Authority did not consider the representation of the respondent

and acted without application of mind while imposing the penalty

of dismissal from service against the respondent. On a perusal of

the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate

Authority, we find that the representation submitted by the

respondent has been duly adverted to and objectively considered

by both the authorities and the same were found to be devoid of

substance.

24

32. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not

necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and

every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation

against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required

to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified

by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi

Gaolia Bank

27, wherein it was held:-

“11. . . . Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary

authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer

and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be

recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is

imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report,

as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given

by the disciplinary authority. . . .”

33. All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority

is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary

proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material

placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt

of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of

probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the Disciplinary

27

(2021) 3 SCC 806.

25

Authority and the Appellate Authority while dealing with the case

of the respondent.

34. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave

error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal

trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer.

It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the

prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden

upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case

on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In this regard,

we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union of

India v. Sardar Bahadur,

28 wherein this Court held as follows: -

“15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The

standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability

and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that

Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with

the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw

from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a

court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some

relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which

materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer

is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its

jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to

arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry

has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of

the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. . . .”

28

(1972) 4 SCC 618.

26

35. We find that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the

writ petition

29 filed by the respondent against the orders passed by

the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, considered

the entire factual matrix in detail and dismissed the writ petition

preferred by the respondent vide a detailed and well-reasoned

judgment dated 29

th June, 2011.

36. The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court jurisdiction is

crystallised by this Court in the case of Management of Narendra

& Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra &

Company,

30 wherein it was held as under:

“5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had

come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning

after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a

different finding without any further material before the

Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that

the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the

Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on

a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a

conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse,

it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view

or a better view is possible, there should be no interference

with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge,

unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.”

(emphasis supplied)

29

Supra note 15.

30

(2016) 3 SCC 340.

27

37. The position is, thus, settled that in an intra-court writ

appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the

interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge

is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is

perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. However, the

Division Bench, in the present case, failed to record any such

finding and rather, proceeded to delve into extensive re -

appreciation of evidence to overturn the judgment of the learned

Single Judge.

38. On going through the material on record, we are of the view

that the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing the

penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent . The

Appellate Authority too has duly applied its mind to the facts

available on record while affirming the order of the Disciplinary

Authority and rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent. These

two orders have rightly been affirmed by the learned Single Judge

of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition

31 filed by the

respondent. The judgment dated 29

th June, 2011 rendered by the

learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and unassailable.

31

Supra note 15.

28

39. In the wake of the above discussion, we hold that the Division

Bench, while exercising the intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction

clearly erred in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded

by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as affirmed

by the learned Single Judge.

40. As an upshot of the above discussion, we find that t he

impugned judgment dated 1

st March, 2012 passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The

same deserves to be and is hereby set aside.

41. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

42. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………….……….J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI )

………………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

New Delhi;

February 04, 2025.