Disciplinary misconduct can be upheld on a proved substantial charge even when other charges fail, the SC rule confirms.

In disciplinary proceedings, written statements from a prior criminal trial cannot be relied on unless the witnesses are produced for cross-examination, so the first two charges failed on that material. By contrast, misconduct may be proved on a preponderance of probability, and a reasonable inference from proved facts is sufficient to establish a contravention of Rule 13(5) where the lender was likely to have official dealings with the employee. A punishment may be sustained on a proved substantial charge even if other charges are not established, so the compulsory retirement was upheld on the basis of the proved third charge and the High Court's interference was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded in the earlier criminal trial could be relied upon in the disciplinary inquiry without producing the makers for cross-examination; (ii) Whether the finding that the respondent had borrowed money from a person likely to have official dealings with him, thereby contravening Rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, was sustainable; (iii) Whether the order of compulsory retirement could stand although the first two charges were not proved.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded in the earlier criminal trial could be relied upon in the disciplinary inquiry without producing the makers for cross-examination.

Analysis: Materials sought to be used against a delinquent officer in a disciplinary inquiry must be capable of being tested in a fair manner. Written statements of witnesses from the criminal case, when the witnesses were not produced and tendered for cross-examination, could not properly be treated as proof of the contested facts. The inquiry authority was therefore justified in declining to act upon those statements.

Conclusion: The objection to exclusion of those statements failed; the first two charges were not proved on that material.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that the respondent had borrowed money from a person likely to have official dealings with him, thereby contravening Rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, was sustainable.

Analysis: In disciplinary proceedings, proof is by preponderance of probability, and a reasonable inference from proved facts is sufficient. On the proved circumstances, the lender was connected with applications that would come, in due course, within the respondent's official sphere. The fact that future official dealings were likely was enough to attract the rule, and the absence of a separate explicit finding did not matter where the conclusion necessarily followed from the proved facts.

Conclusion: The third charge was proved and the finding of contravention of Rule 13(5) was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of compulsory retirement could stand although the first two charges were not proved.

Analysis: A punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority does not fail merely because some charges are not established, so long as it can be supported on a proved substantial charge. The Court will not reappraise the adequacy of the evidence where there are relevant materials supporting the finding and the punishment is otherwise authorised.

Conclusion: The order of compulsory retirement was validly supported by the proved misconduct.

Final Conclusion: The interference made by the High Court was set aside and the disciplinary order was restored on the basis of the proved third charge.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, a punishment may be sustained on a proved substantial charge even if other charges fail, and a reasonable inference drawn from proved facts is enough to establish misconduct on a preponderance of probability.

---