Judicial Review in Departmental Proceedings Order not warranted unless infraction of rule, regulation or violation of principles of natural justice made out: Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has held there lies no scope for judicial review in an order passed following a departmental inquiry, if there is no infraction of any rule or regulation or violation of principles of natural justice.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramaniun noted,

"It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the principles of natural justice. The best available evidence had been produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry conducted after long lapse of time."

The Court, while upholding the order of the Commandment Authority (which conducted the departmental inquiry) found that burden of proof in departmental proceedings are based on ‘probability of misconduct’ and not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

“The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct. The delinquent such as the writ petitioner could examine himself to rebut the allegations of misconduct including use of personal weapon. In fact, the reliance of the writ petitioner is upon a communication dated 1.5.2014 made to the Commandant through the inquiry officer. He has stated that he has not fired on higher officers and that he was out of camp at the alleged time of incident. Therefore, a false case has been made against him.”

Factual Matrix in brief:

The writ petitioner was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was accused of firing from his service revolver at Head Constable Shri Harish Chander and Deputy Commandant Shri Hari Singh, resulting in the death of Shri Harish Chander and injuries to Shri Hari Singh.

Consequently, FIR was lodged against the writ petitioner for an offence under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Trial Court convicted the writ petitioner on 11.3.1996 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

However, in appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted him of the charges framed against him by giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

Subsequently, the departmental proceeding that followed did not deal with the death or injury of the victims, but only regarding the petitioner’s alleged misconduct with reference to “safe custody of arms and ammunition issued to force personnel while on duty.”

The Commandant, i.e. the punishing authority, had found the writ petitioner has misused his service weapon and hence not entitled to be retained in the disciplinary force.

Such order was affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority.

Consequently, the High Court in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner examined the question as to whether service rifle was issued on 11.4.1993.

The High Court found in favour of the writ petitioner pointing out that the department is confused on facts, concluding that this was a case based on no evidence.

What the Supreme Court held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference in the matter is beyond its power of judicial review. The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court has failed to see that the charge sheet did not contain any allegation regarding the death of victim. The Court further quoted B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors, stating that:

“..it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.”

Further, the Top Court held that the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable and set aside the same.

Beyond reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. This level of onus has barred wrongful conviction as punishment under criminal law can be severe.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh

Access Copy of Judgment