In Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022-SC- Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are vested with exclusive power to examine evidence forming part of inquiry report: Supreme Court
Justices D.Y. Chandrachud & Hima Kohli [23-11-2022]

Read Judgment: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SUBRATA NATH 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, November 26, 2022: The Supreme Court has held that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on a CISF constable was commensurate with the dereliction of duty on his part as  his gross negligence had resulted in theft of aprox. 800 kgs of copper wires from the spot where he was performing his duty.

“ It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli asserted.

The respondent joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable in 1994. In the year 2007, a local police intercepted a Tata-407 truck loaded with approximately 800 kg. of copper wires outside the port premises and informed the CISF about the said incident. It transpired that the said copper wires had been removed from the scrap yard of Alif Nagar Kolkata Port in the duration when the respondent was on duty. The respondent was placed under suspension and charge sheeted.

The Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Commandant rejected the representation of the respondent and in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 32 r/w Schedule-I and Rule 32 (1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was dismissed.

In Revision, the Revisional Authority upheld the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.Then, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta and the Single Judge set aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent and compulsorily retired him from service w.e.f. November 27, 2008 alongwith all consequential benefits.

When the appellants – Union of India filed appeals, the decision of the Single Judge was quashed. Instead, it was directed that the respondent would be entitled to be reinstated in service along with full back wages from the date of his dismissal.  Questioning this judgment, the appeals had been filed before the Apex Court.

The Bench opined that on finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. 

Referring to its judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Bench noticed that in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra).

The Bench said, “To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities,  both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report.”

As per the Bench, there was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer and the same was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which was impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Noting that the gross negligence and dereliction of duty has resulted in theft of 800 kgs. copper wires from the spot where the respondent was performing his duty and the respondent did not mend his ways during thirteen years of service rendered by him and was awarded punishments for various delinquencies, the desirability of continuing the respondent in the Armed Forces was certainly questionable and the Disciplinary Authority could not be expected to wear blinkers in respect of his past conduct while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on him.

Thus, the Top Court allowed both the appeals preferred by the Union of India and dismissed the appeals filed by the private respondent, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.