UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DALBIR SINGH

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
DALBIR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No.5848 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA  AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal from service – The writ petitioner
was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) – A FIR was lodged against the writ petitioner u/ss. 302,
307 of IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act – He was accused of firing
from his service revolver on Head Constable and Deputy
Commandant, resulting in death of the Head Constable and injuring
Deputy Commandant – Trial Court convicted the writ petitioner –
However, the High Court acquitted him – Criminal Appeal filed by
the State against the acquittal of the High Court was dismissed by
the Supreme Court – The writ petitioner was dismissed from service
on account of conviction by the trial Court – However, as he was
acquitted by the High Court, the writ petitioner was reinstated –
Another charge-sheet was issued on 25.02.2013 – The Commandant,
the punishing authority returned the finding that writ petitioner had
misused his service weapon and was not entitled to be retained in
the disciplinary force – The order was affirmed by the appellate
authority and the revisional authority – In the writ petition filed,
the High Court exercised power of judicial review set aside the
order of dismissal of the Competent Authority – On appeal, held:
The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the
power of judicial review over the orders passed in the disciplinary
proceedings which were conducted while adhering to the principles
of natural justice – The burden of proof in the departmental
proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle
in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct – The
allegations in the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 that the writ
petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding
returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence
placed before them – It is not a case of no evidence, which alone
would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 800
800
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
of judicial review – It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there
was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the
principles of natural justice – The best available evidence was
produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry – The order
passed by the High Court is not sustainable – Hence, the same is
set aside and the order of punishment of dismissal passed as affirmed
in appeal and revision stands restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This court observed that the High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial
review over the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings
which were conducted while adhering to the principles of natural
justice. [Para 17][808-G]
2. In the present case this court observed that the writ
petitioner completed his fatigue duty at 10 am and then reported
for duty at the Headquarters. In the later Charge Sheet dated
25.2.2013, the departmental witnesses have uniformly deposed
that the noise of firing of 15-20 gun shots was heard around 11
am on 11.4.1993. In fact, PW-6 Constable is the one who
immobilized the writ petitioner when he was in the process of
loading another magazine in the self-loading rifle. Still further,
PW-5 has deposed that 3-4 soldiers had taken the self-loaded
rifle of the writ petitioner. Such self-loaded rifle is the one which
was issued to the writ petitioner. The statement of some of the
departmental witnesses was that they heard that the writ
petitioner used his personal weapon but such part of the
statements is hearsay evidence. It was open to the writ petitioner
to lead evidence that he was not using the official weapon but a
personal weapon to rebut the stand of the Department. [Paras 19
and 20][809-A-D]
3. The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is
not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal
trial but probabilities of the misconduct. The delinquent such as
the writ petitioner could examine himself to rebut the allegations
of misconduct including use of personal weapon. In fact, the
reliance of the writ petitioner is upon a communication dated
1.5.2014 made to the Commandant through the inquiry officer.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DALBIR SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
He has stated t

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