THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus HEEM SINGH

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 29-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 951
951
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
HEEM SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020)
OCTOBER 29, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal from service after a disciplinary
enquiry – The respondent was appointed as a constable in the State
police service – It was alleged that the respondent overstayed leave
by a period of 3 days beyond the leave sanctioned – Few days
thereafter, he was arrested for the offence of murder u/s.302 IPC –
It was alleged that there was a dispute over land between the
respondent and victim-deceased – Also, the respondent’s father was
bitten by snake and he was treated by the victim using witchcraft,
which did not yield result, leading to the death of respondent’s father
– According to the prosecution, the respondent bore a grudge towards
the victim due to this incident and had proclaimed to kill him –
Victim’s death was caused by an accident with an unknown vehicle
– The Trial Court found that the deceased had intimated at the police
station a threat to his life from the respondent few years before the
incident – A succession of prosecution witnesses were declared hostile
(PWs 3, 4, 5,17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 34) and the Court found it
unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 based on inconsistencies
in his evidence – The respondent was given the benefit of doubt
and was acquitted – However, in disciplinary proceedings under
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules 1958, the enquiry officer found charges of misconduct proved
that the respondent as a member of the police force had committed
an act of murder while on leave – Consequently, he was dismissed
from service – The appeal and review filed by the respondent were
dismissed – The writ petition filed by the respondent was also rejected
by the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the Division
Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the Single Judge
and directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with
consequential benefits but without back-wages – On appeal, held:
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceeding is different from
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
that of criminal trial – While the standard of proof in criminal case
is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental
proceeding is a preponderance of probabilities – In the instant case,
the respondent and his parked tractor were seen proximate in time
and in terms of the location where victim’s dead body was found by
both PW1 and PW3 – The respondent was found to be together with
one of the co-accused proximate in time – These circumstances are
coupled with respondent’s movements at and around the time of the
murder, commencing with but not confined to his being at the village
on leave for 2 days coinciding with the murder – This may not be
sufficient to sustain a conviction on a charge of murder in the session
trial – But, the State had sufficient material to conclude that the
connection of respondent to the incident would affect the reputation
of its police force – The reinstatement of such an employee back in
service will erode the credibility of and public confidence in the
image of the police force – Therefore, the direction of the Division
Bench for reinstatement set aside.
In judicial review over disciplinary matters – Held: Two ends
of spectrum - First is a rule of restraint founded on deference to the
position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority
and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and
efficiency of the service – At the other end of the spectrum is the
principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the
findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they
suffer from perversity – A failure to consider vital evidence is an
incident of what the law regards as a perverse determination of
fact – Service jurisprudence has recognized the authority of the
court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate
to the weight of the evidence or misconduct.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Evidence in the disciplinary enquiry
1. A complete review of the evidence indicates there was a
pre-existing hostility between the respondent and the victim-
deceased. This hostility initially arose in the context of a land
dispute. The hostility between them escalated exponentially after
the death of the respondent’s father for which

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