Summary
The Court restored the CRPF constable’s dismissal and set aside reinstatement and back-pay relief. The authorised departmental inquiry concerned misuse of issued arms, distinct from the criminal charges on which he had received benefit of doubt. Credible oral evidence supported the finding despite unavailable old issue registers. The High Court wrongly treated different-time duty allegations as contradictory and reappreciated the evidence as an appellate court. Departmental proof required a preponderance of probabilities; no procedural or natural-justice violation was shown.
Issues
- Whether the departmental misconduct finding was unsupported by evidence or impermissibly contradicted the earlier duty charge.
- Whether criminal acquittal and unavailable issue registers justified the High Court’s interference with dismissal.
Provisions considered
- Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review examined legality, fairness and whether evidence supported the finding; it did not permit appellate reassessment of the evidence’s adequacy in this lawful inquiry. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30)
Held
- The earlier charge concerned failure to perform fatigue duty between 9 and 10 a.m.; the later charge concerned unauthorised firing around 11 a.m. The High Court’s supposed contradiction overlooked that difference. A previous court order had expressly permitted an inquiry into accountability for the issued arms and ammunition, excluding retrial of the death and injury charges. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19)
- Departmental proceedings applied a preponderance-of-probabilities standard and did not rigidly apply criminal evidentiary rules. Criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt did not by itself defeat otherwise permissible disciplinary action. Logically probative material, including credible hearsay with a reasonable nexus, could be considered subject to fairness and rational evaluation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29)
- The eyewitness who immobilised the constable and the corroborating witnesses supplied evidence of firing and recovery of his service rifle. The old issue registers were unavailable, but the best available oral evidence supported the departmental finding. The alternative terrorist-attack and absence explanation had not been put to those witnesses. This was not a no-evidence case. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 28, 29)
- The inquiry complied with natural justice, and no rule or regulatory infraction was shown. The High Court exceeded judicial-review limits by reassessing the evidence. Its order was set aside, the dismissal as affirmed departmentally restored, and the Union’s appeal allowed. (¶¶ 15, 17, 22, 23, 29, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court reinstatement and arrears order set aside, and departmental dismissal restored.