New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that public employers do not need to prove misconduct ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to dismiss an errant employee. Instead, they are only required to establish misconduct on the ‘preponderance of probabilities’—a lower standard of proof than what is required in criminal trials.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta, in a judgment delivered on February 4, overturned a 2012 decision of the Calcutta High Court’s division bench and upheld the dismissal of Pradip Kumar Banerjee, a former assistant engineer (civil) with the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
The Supreme Court ruled that a disciplinary inquiry and a criminal trial operate under different standards of proof. While criminal trials demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a disciplinary proceeding only requires proof based on the balance of probabilities.
“It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities,”
the court stated in its 28-page verdict, authored by Justice Mehta.
The ruling provides greater flexibility to government and public sector employers, allowing them to proceed with disciplinary action and dismiss employees even if they are acquitted in a related criminal case.
The case revolves around Pradip Kumar Banerjee, who was arrested along with a junior engineer from AAI on allegations of accepting illegal gratification from a contractor’s representative.
Following an FIR filed by the CBI under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, a special court convicted Banerjee while acquitting his colleague. As a result, Banerjee was dismissed from service on July 13, 2000, based on his conviction.
However, Banerjee challenged his dismissal in court, leading to a series of litigations.
Legal Battle: Calcutta High Court vs Supreme Court
- 2011: A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld Banerjee’s dismissal, finding it to be legally justified and well-reasoned.
- 2012: The division bench of the High Court overturned this decision, reinstating Banerjee and ruling in his favor.
- AAI challenged the decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erroneously applied the criminal standard of proof to a disciplinary proceeding.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of AAI, stating that the division bench had made a grave error by interfering with the single-judge decision.
The top court clarified that in an intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court should not interfere with a single-judge ruling unless it is found to be perverse or legally flawed.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Launches ‘KHJ-Daily’ WhatsApp Service for Reported Judgments
“The position is, thus, settled that in an intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the learned single judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned single judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law,”
the Supreme Court stated.
The court further noted that the division bench failed to record any such error in the single judge’s ruling, yet proceeded with an extensive re-appreciation of evidence, which was beyond its jurisdiction.
This ruling is a significant boost for public employers, as it reinforces their authority to dismiss employees based on disciplinary findings, regardless of the outcome of any criminal case against them. It also clarifies the distinction between criminal proceedings and departmental inquiries, ensuring that public sector organizations can take necessary action against misconduct without being bound by criminal trial verdicts.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
