SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. versus SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 03-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. 
v. 
SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TA RUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service law 
C 
Disciplinary proceedings-Appreciation of facts and adequacy/reliability 
of evidence·-Held: Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority are sole judges 
of these-In a writ proceeding under Art. 226 of Constitution, these issues 
cannot be canvassed and merits of case cannot be gone into. 
Disciplinary proceedings- Punishment of removal frum service-Held: 
D It ought not be passed without supplying to delinquent employee copies of 
documents relied on by Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority-Otherwise, 
it would cause serious prejudice tu him and deny him reasonable opportunity 
of hearing. 
Disciplinary proceedings-Acquittal in criminal case-Effect of-Held: 
E In departmental proceeding, o,.der of removal of delinquent employee from 
service can be passed even after the acquittal in criminal case. 
Respondent no. 1 was employed as a bus driver with appellant-transport 
corporation. One day the bus he was driving met with an accident resulting 
F in death of number of persons and injuries to some passengers. In an enquiry 
into the incident ordered by State Government, the District Magistrate of the 
place where the accident took place, held him responsible for accident as well 
as deaths and injury to bus passengers. In the departmental inquiry, the 
inquiry officer, after considering the report of the District Magistrate, 
G depositions relied upon therein as well as recorded before him, concurred with 
conclusions of the District Magistrate. Relying on these conclusions, the 
Disciplinary authority ordered his remov'll from service. However, in criminal 
proceedings initiated against him, he was acquitted on the ground of 
insufficiency of evidence in support of conclusion of his guilt. 
H 
Respondent no. l filed a writ petition challenging his removal from 
30 
t 
\. 
( 
.} 
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPN. 1'. SWAPAN KUMAR MITRA 
31 
'{ 
service on the grounds that (i) the Disciplinary Authority could not continue A 
! 
with the departmental proceeding and impose punishment of removal from 
service after his acquittal in the criminal case; (ii) the documents relied on 
by the inquiry officer featured neither in the list of documents annexed to 
the charge sheet nor copies of the same were supplied to him. 
Single Judge of High Court held (i) Non-supply of copies of the report B 
of the District Magistrate and other allied documents relied on by him and 
'" 
the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, vitiated the departmental 
proceedings. In view of that the order of removal was set aside. The 
disciplinary authority was directed to supply copies of aforementioned 
documents to respondent no. I for filing of comments and thereafter reach a c 
fresh conclusion on the question of him removal from service after giving a 
reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. (ii) As the degree of proof in a 
criminal proceeding is higher than in a departmental proceeding, acquittal 
in the criminal case could not be a bar fur the disciplinary authorities either 
for initiating or continuing with departmental proceedings against an D 
employee and imposing penalty of removal from service. 
·-"-
Respondent No. I preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the 
High Court against the judgment of the Single Judge instead of appearing 
before the disciplinary authority. As regards the report of District Magistrate, 
the Division Bench found that only its photocopy was filed before the Inquiry E 
Officer and held it to be inadmissible evidence. Further, as District Magistrate 
was not examined and no one proved the reliability and authenticity of his 
report, it was not open to the inquiry officer or to the disciplinary authority 
to rely on the said report to arrive at their finding. It also held that the Inquiry 
Officer, by relying on the depositions of witnesses allegedly examined by the F 
District Magistrate without himself examining them, exceeded his jurisdiction 
____) 
and this was wholly illegal, void and leading to perversity. It also held that 
since the FIR did not mention about the rash and negligent driving, no reliance 
could be placed on it. In view of this, the Division Bench, without touching 
on the acquittal of respondent no. 1 in the criminal case and its consequences, 
G 
quashed the disciplinal)· proceeding, set aside the judgment of t

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