The Supreme Court has recently observed that a public servant, despite being acquitted in a corruption case due to insufficient evidence to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, may still be subject to a departmental inquiry.

In criminal proceedings, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas departmental inquiries only require a preponderance of probabilities. The Court highlighted that this distinction implies that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude or stop a disciplinary inquiry. Therefore, even if a public servant is dismissed following a departmental inquiry, their reinstatement is not automatic after a criminal acquittal.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta heard a case involving the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and a former employee. The AAI challenged the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which had overturned the employee's dismissal following a departmental disciplinary inquiry in a corruption case.

In brief, the respondent, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) at AAI, was initially convicted by a CBI Court on corruption charges but was later acquitted by the High Court due to insufficient evidence, which led to him being given the benefit of doubt.

Despite his acquittal, AAI initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings, resulting in his dismissal from service. The High Court's Division Bench reversed this dismissal, prompting AAI to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

The Court examined whether the High Court had erred in overturning the disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss the respondent, despite his acquittal in the criminal case.

The judgment, authored by Justice Mehta, reversed the High Court's ruling and reinstated the respondent's dismissal. It emphasized that an employer's disciplinary authority operates independently from criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent disciplinary action based on a separate inquiry. It also noted that while criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, disciplinary hearings only require a preponderance of probabilities, a lower standard.

“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.''

The Court further stated that, in conducting a disciplinary inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority is not obligated to address every ground raised by the delinquent officer in their representation against the proposed penalty. Additionally, detailed reasons do not need to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if the officer accepts the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

“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.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

Appearance:

For the Appellant(s):

• Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
• Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv.
• Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Adv.
• Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv.
• M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

For the Respondent(s):

• Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv.
• Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv.
• Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, AOR (Not present)