In W.P.No.40001 of 2015-MAD HC- Preponderance of probabilities sufficient to punish employee under Discipline and Appeal Rules, says Madras HC Justice S.M.Subramaniam [23-06-2022]

Read Order: G.KRISHNAN V. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, June 27, 2022: Without finding any infirmity in respect of the punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon a Warder in Prison Service, the Madras High Court has observed that the procedures to be followed in criminal proceedings before the Criminal Court of Law cannot be compared with the procedures to be followed in departmental disciplinary proceedings.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam dismissed the present petition directed against the order of dismissal from service and opined that disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of Natural Justice. But, they are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is not the strict standard, which governs a criminal trial of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities, added the Bench.

In this matter, a charge memo was framed against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charge against the writ petitioner was that the petitioner had thrown the bundle of prohibited articles inside the prison for handing it over to a prisoner, Muthu Krishnan. When investigation was conducted half kilogram of prohibited article was found beneath the bed of the prisoner. 

Consequently, departmental disciplinary actions were initiated and in pursuance of the same a criminal case was registered. However, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal. The departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner were continued and the Enquiry Officer was appointed.  Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding that the charges are held proved, the punishment of dismissal from service was issued by the second respondent. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected. Again, the writ petitioner instituted a revision petition before the fourth respondent and the said orders were under challenge in the present writ petition. 

The Court was of the opinion that the charges alleged against the writ petitioner were serious in nature. Noting that the procedures to be followed in criminal proceedings before the Criminal Court of Law cannot be compared with the procedures to be followed in departmental disciplinary proceedings, the Bench said, “Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.”

The Bench noted that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity and an enquiry was conducted.  In order to consider the ground raised by the petitioner that the case in hand was the case of “no evidence’, the Court took into account the statement of prosecution witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings.  Perusal of the statement of witnesses clearly revealed that the incident was established and the allegation against the writ petitioner was also established.  The probabilities were sufficient enough to punish an employee under the Disciplinary Rules, noted the Bench.  Thus, this Court was of the opinion that in the present case, the Department did not fail to establish the charges. 

Reliance was also placed in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Others. Affirming that the allegations against the writ petitioner were grave in nature and constituted an offence under law, the Bench held that when such charges were proved in the departmental disciplinary enquiry, there was no reason whatsoever to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition failed and was dismissed.