ORISSA MINING CORPORATION AND ANR. versus ANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 05-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY 
NOVEMBER 5, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Burden of Proof-Depends 
upon nature of charges and explanation by the delinquent officer. 
Two charges framed against the respondent who was working 
as Assistant Accounts Officer with the appellant-corporation. C 
Disciplinary inquiry was held. 
On the basis of inquiry report, the respondent was dismissed 
from service. Respondent challenged the said order in the High Court 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order. 
D 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the question of 
burden of proof becomes irrelevant when both parties have adduced 
their evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of tbe case E 
Ibis Court. 
HELD: 1. In a departmental or disciplinary inquiry the question 
of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and nature of 
explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. [43SDJ 
F 
2.1. There is no such thing as absolute burden of proof always 
lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry. The burden of 
proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of 
charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent G 
officer depending upon his explanation. (435F[ 
2.2. In the instant case one of the charges was that the respondent 
had made certam false noting on account of which loans were disbursed 
to certain ineligible persons. The respondents case was that those loans 
were based upon certain documents produced and certain records H 
433 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it 
was for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not 
expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that 
their acts or accounts could not have formed the basis of wrong noting 
made by the respondent. [435 F-HJ. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14163 of 
c 
D 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.96 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 2616 of 1995. 
lnterjit Roy and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. 
Heard the counsel for the parties. 
The respondent was an Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of 
the appellant-corporation. Two charges were framed against him and a 
E disciplinary inquiry held. The first charge was that the respondent made 
certain false notings while recommending sanction of loans to certain 
persons to the effect that no loan was outstanding against them. On the 
basis of such false notings, loans were sanctioned to them, contrary to the 
rules. The second charge was that he failed to exercise proper control and 
supervision on the staff on account of which the relevant registers and 
F record were not kept upto date. The inquiry officer reported that while 
charge No. I is established, charge No.2 is proved only partially. On the 
basis of the said report the respondent was dismissed from service, which 
he challenged by way of writ petition in the Orissa High Court. The High 
Court has allowed the writ petition holding: (a) the burden of proving the 
G first charge rested with the department. The inquiry officer, however, has 
wrongly cast the burden of disproving the charge upon the respondent. 
The department must succeed on the strength of its own evidence and not 
on the basis of weakness or the failure of the delinquent officer to prove 
his innocence. Since the inquiry officer has proceeded on a wrong 
hypothesis not permissible in law, the finding recorded by him on charge 
H No.I is liable to be quashed. (b) No rules have been cited which show 
-
ORJSSA MINING CORPN. v. A.C. PRU STY [B.P. JEE VAN REDDY, J .] 435 
which officer is required to maintain which register nor is there any oral A 
evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. In the case of this charge 
too, the burclen has been wrongly cast upon the respondent to prove his 
innocence. Accordingly the High Court quashed the order of punishment 
impugned in the writ petition. 
Learned counsel for the appellant-corporation submitted that the B 
question of burden of proof becomes irrelevant when both parties have 
adduced their evidence. Learned counsel also complained that the 
High Court seem to suggest that the standard of proof required in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.