UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SITARAM MISHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 11-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SITARAM MISHRA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6183 of 2010)
JULY 11, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Dismissal from service – Under s. 11(1) of CRPF Act r/w CRPF
Rules – After holding disciplinary enquiry – Holding the delinquent
guilty of misconduct for carelessly handling the weapon assigned
to him as a member of the force, resulting in death of one person –
In criminal case u/s. 304 IPC the delinquent was acquitted – Writ
petition challenging dismissal from service – Dismissed by High
Court – Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single
Judge holding that charge of misconduct was not established –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There was no irregularity in the
enquiry – High Court in exercise of judicial review was wrong in
reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the finding of
disciplinary authority – Acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal
case cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding
of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings – Central Reserve Police
Force Act, 1949 – s. 11(1) – Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955 – r.27(a).
Departmental Enquiry – Standard of proof – Vis-a-vis criminal
trial – Disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of
proof than that which applies to a criminal case – Criminal trial –
Evidence – Standard of proof.
Administrative Law:
Judicial Review – In disciplinary matters – Scope of – Held:
While deciding a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry,
Court cannot reappreciate evidence – Such finding can be interfered
with only where the finding is based on no evidence.
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 585
585
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The disciplinary authority found that the charge
of misconduct was sustainable on the basis of the evidence on
the record.  The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the
judgment of Single Judge of High Court primarily on the basis of
the depositions of PW 5 and PW 6 to the effect that the 9MM
carbine was disassembled.  The High Court was manifestly in
error in reappreciating the evidence which was adduced during
the disciplinary enquiry.  The issue, in the exercise of judicial
review against a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry,
is whether the finding is sustainable with reference to some
evidence on the record.  The High Court can, interfere only in a
situation where the finding is based on no evidence.  In such a
situation, the finding is rendered perverse. [Para 9] [590-E-G]
1.2 In the present case, the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench adverts to the statement of the first respondent
of the circumstances in which the death of his colleague occurred.
The part of the admission of the first respondent clearly indicates
that it was as a result of the handling of the weapon by the first
respondent that the bullets were fired and the death of his
colleague occurred in consequence.  None of the material facts
are in dispute.  In this view of the matter, the High Court was
manifestly in error in interfering with the findings of the
disciplinary enquiry, particularly when a Single Judge had, in the
course of his judgment, found no irregularity in the enquiry.  The
punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the misconduct
proved. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] [590-G; 591-A-B]
2.1 A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard
of proof than that which applies to a criminal case.  In a criminal
trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge
beyond reasonable doubt.  The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry
is to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee
has committed a breach of the service rules. [Para 12] [591-C-D]
2.2 In the present case, the Single Judge has adverted to
Circular Order No.16/85, which inter alia imposed the obligation
upon the members of the CRPF to enforce strict fire discipline
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. SITARAM MISHRA AND ANR.
and to take severe disciplinary action against the defaulters. The
fact that the first respondent was acquitted in the course of the
criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating
the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the
course of the disciplinary proceedings. The charge in the criminal
trial arose from the death of a co-employee in the course of the
incident resulting from the

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