LexAIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 404 : 2025 INSC 149 Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No. 8414 of 2017) 04 February 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal in service – Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of intra-court writ appeal – Respondent, working with the appellant, arrested on allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification – Order of conviction – During pendency, the Disciplinary Authority ordered dismissal of the respondent, upheld by the Appellate Court – Writ petition thereagainst, disposed of by the High Court, with direction that if the respondent is acquitted, he could approach the Authority to reconsider the dismissal order – High Court acquitted the respondent – Respondent then filed representation, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal, however, placed the respondent under deemed suspension – Writ petition thereagainst, seeking direction to restrain the Authority from initiating fresh departmental proceedings and quash the memorandum of charge issued against him, allowed by the Single Judge, and directed to re-instate him – Appellant authority then filed intra-court appeal, which was allowed by the Division Bench – SLP thereagainst also dismissed directing the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent be expedited – Disciplinary Authority then accepted the enquiry report and imposed penalty of dismissal which was affirmed by the sub-committee, and thereafter upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the Division Bench set aside the order – Sustainability: * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 405 Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee Held: Not sustainable – Division Bench in the impugned judgment overturned the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation, despite such judgment having attained finality – Division Bench erred in holding that non-examination of the complainant was fatal to the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the appellant- Authority – Even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the courts are empowered to record conviction, where the decoy turns hostile, and the prosecution case is based purely on the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and the trap witness – Representation submitted by the respondent duly adverted to and objectively considered by Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority – In disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer and detailed reasons are not required in the order imposing punishment – Disciplinary Authority 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 – Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority precisely did the same – Division Bench also erred in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer – In an intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law – However, Division Bench failed to record any such finding and rather, proceeded to delve into extensive re-appreciation of evidence to overturn the judgment of the Single Judge – Thus, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent, which was rightly affirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Judgment rendered by the Single Judge well- reasoned and unassailable – Division Bench while exercising the intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with the concurrent findings, thus the impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 27-34, 37-40] 406 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 253 : (2006) 5 SCC 446; Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh [2006] 3 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.