THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR versus UMESH

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 22-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 574
574
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
v.
UMESH
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1764 of 2022 )
MARCH 22, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law: Disciplinary Enquiry – Respondent working as
a village accountant was charged for demanding bribery – Criminal
complaint registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 – Special Judge granted benefit of doubt to him and
acquitted him of all charges – However, disciplinary authority held
that the misconduct was proved and imposed penalty of compulsory
retirement – Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement –
High Court, however, u/Art.226 set aside compulsory retirement –
On appeal, held: While exercising judicial review, Court does not
act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority – Court does not re-appreciate the evidence which forms
the basis of finding of misconduct in the course of a disciplinary
enquiry – The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict
its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice were
complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct was based on some
evidence; (iii) the statutory rules were observed; and (iv) the findings
of the disciplinary authority suffered from perversity; and (vi) the
penalty was disproportionate to the proven misconduct – None of
the above tests were applied by High Court – High Court exceeded
its jurisdiction under Art.226 and trenched upon a domain which
fell within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer – Enquiry
was conducted in accordance with natural justice – The acquittal
of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge
upon the authority of the disciplinary authority – Judgment of High
court set aside – Finding of misconduct and punishment of
compulsory retirement restored.
Service Law: Principles governing disciplinary enquiry:
Distinction between disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial –
Purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in
a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of
employment – Unlike a criminal prosecution, a charge of
misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of
probabilities – The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case
does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of
disciplinary jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry
are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a
prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the
burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a
presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary
proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of
misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the
service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike
a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established
beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge
of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of
probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial
are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The
acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the
employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary
jurisdiction. [Para 13][585-E-H]
2. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act
as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the
basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in
the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of
judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i)
the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding
of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules
governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been
observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary
authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR v. UMESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of
the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court
were attracte

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