Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of CRPF Constable for Misuse of Service Weapon: Union of India vs. Dalbir Singh (21 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2021
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.5848 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24095 OF 2019)
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a disciplinary authority dismiss a member of the armed forces based on departmental inquiry even after a criminal court acquittal? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable dismissed for misusing his service weapon. The court overturned a High Court decision, upholding the dismissal based on the departmental inquiry’s findings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case revolves around Dalbir Singh, a General Duty Constable in the CRPF. In 1993, he was accused of firing his service revolver, resulting in the death of Head Constable Harish Chander and injuries to Deputy Commandant Hari Singh. This led to a criminal trial where he was initially convicted but later acquitted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Following his acquittal, he was reinstated into service. However, a subsequent departmental inquiry was initiated against him for misusing his service weapon, leading to his dismissal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially convicted Dalbir Singh, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted him, citing a lack of evidence. This acquittal was upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, after reinstatement, a departmental inquiry was initiated, resulting in his dismissal. The High Court of Delhi set aside the dismissal orders, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which deals with misconduct by members of the force. The departmental inquiry was conducted under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing judicial review of departmental proceedings, referencing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the standards of proof required in such inquiries.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly, adhering to principles of natural justice.
• They contended that the evidence presented during the departmental inquiry, including witness testimonies, sufficiently proved the misuse of the service weapon by Dalbir Singh.
• The appellants emphasized that the standard of proof in departmental inquiries is “preponderance of probability” and not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials.
• They asserted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence, which is not permissible in judicial review of departmental proceedings.

Arguments by the Respondent (Dalbir Singh):

• The respondent argued that the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 contradicted the earlier chargesheet dated 27.6.1993, which pertained to not performing fatigue duty, and that the department was confused on facts.
• He contended that the department failed to prove that the weapon issued to him was misused, as he was not on duty at the time of the incident.
• He maintained that the department failed to produce the registers of the entrustment of S.L.R. to the writ petitioner.
• He claimed that he did not fire on higher officers and that he was out of camp at the alleged time of incident.
• He further claimed that it was a terrorist attack and terrorists have fired on the Camp.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceedings.

The sub-issue was:

• Whether the departmental inquiry was valid and based on sufficient evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that strict rules of evidence do not apply in domestic inquiries, and hearsay evidence is permissible if it has reasonable nexus and credibility.
• Union of India & Ors. v. P . Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]: The Court used this case to highlight the parameters for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, stating that High Courts should not re-appreciate evidence.
• B.C Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 749]: This case was cited to clarify that judicial review is meant to ensure fair treatment, not to ensure the correctness of the conclusion reached by the authority.
• Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited v. M. Chandrasekaran [(2016) 16 SCC 16]: The Court used this case to support its position that the Labour Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence in a disciplinary matter.
• Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 764]: This case was used to distinguish between the degree of proof required in criminal trials and departmental inquiries.
• Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 385]: The Court relied on this case to highlight the conceptual difference between departmental inquiries and criminal proceedings.
• Depot Manager, A.P . State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 699]: This case was cited to state that the objective of disciplinary proceedings is to determine if the employee is guilty of conduct meriting removal from service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Procedure: The Court emphasized that the departmental inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, adhering to the principles of natural justice. This procedural correctness was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.
• Evidence of Misconduct: The Court found that the departmental inquiry had produced sufficient evidence to establish the misconduct of the constable. The testimonies of the departmental witnesses, particularly Constable D.K. Mishra, were crucial in establishing that the constable had misused his service weapon.
• Standard of Proof: The Court reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental inquiries is “preponderance of probability” and not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials. This distinction was critical in upholding the dismissal despite the criminal acquittal.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The Court stressed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence. The Court emphasized that judicial review of departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice, not to acting as an appellate authority.
• Relevance of Criminal Acquittal: The Court clarified that a criminal acquittal does not automatically preclude departmental action on the same facts. Departmental proceedings can be initiated and sustained independently of criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the facts and the applicable legal principles. The Court emphasized that the departmental proceedings were distinct from the criminal proceedings and that the standard of proof was different. The Court also stressed the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible.”

“In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”.”

“The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• Departmental Proceedings Independent of Criminal Trials: A criminal acquittal does not automatically prevent or invalidate departmental proceedings on the same facts.
• Standard of Proof: The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is “preponderance of probability,” which is different from the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard in criminal trials.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: High Courts should not re-appreciate evidence in departmental proceedings; their role is limited to ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice.
• Importance of Discipline: The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and the need for departmental authorities to have the power to take action against misconduct.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that departmental proceedings can be initiated and sustained independently of criminal proceedings, even if there is an acquittal in the criminal trial. The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is “preponderance of probability,” and High Courts should not re-appreciate evidence in such proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF constable for misusing his service weapon, emphasizing the independence of departmental proceedings from criminal trials and clarifying the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline within the armed forces and the ability of departmental authorities to take action against misconduct based on a “preponderance of probability” standard.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Departmental Inquiry, Judicial Review, Criminal Acquittal, Misconduct, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Section 11(1), CRPF Rules, Rule 27

Parent Category: Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

Child Category: Section 11(1), Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

FAQ

Q: Can an employee be dismissed after being acquitted in a criminal case?
A: Yes, an employee can be dismissed based on a departmental inquiry even after being acquitted in a criminal case, as the standards of proof and objectives of the two proceedings are different.

Q: What is the standard of proof in departmental inquiries?
A: The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is “preponderance of probability,” which is a lower standard than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard in criminal trials.

Q: Can a High Court re-evaluate evidence in a departmental inquiry?
A: No, the High Court’s role in judicial review of departmental proceedings is limited to ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for armed forces personnel?
A: This judgment underscores the importance of discipline in the armed forces and the ability of departmental authorities to take action against misconduct, even if the individual has been acquitted in a criminal trial.