2020 (9) TMI 1293 - SC - Indian Laws

Police officer's dismissal for corruption and fabricating records upheld as proportionate punishment under Article 311

Pravin Kumar Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging dismissal from service for corruption, fabricating GD entries, and gross misconduct. The court held that judicial ... Gross misconduct and indiscipline by virtue of ordering of a false GD Entry - extra-constitutional authority by issuing unlawful orders to Constable KK Sharma to give false statement to substantiate the aforementioned fake GD entry - corruption for illegally collecting bribes from contractors of BPCL through his subordinates - Effect of criminal enquiry on disciplinary proceedings. HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority - The High Court was thus rightly concerned more about the competence of the enquiry officer and adherence to natural justice, rather than verifying the Appellant's guilt through documents and statements. It clearly noted that evidence was led, cross-examination was conducted and opportunities of addressing arguments, raising objections, and filing appeal were granted. The conclusion obtained was based upon these very evidences and was detailed and well-reasoned. Even in general parlance, where an appellate or reviewing Court/authority comes to a different conclusion, ordinarily the decision under appeal ought not to be disturbed in so far as it remains plausible or is not found ailing with perversity. The present case is neither one where there is no evidence, nor is it one where we can arrive at a different conclusion than the disciplinary authority, especially for the reasons stated hereunder. Effect of criminal enquiry on disciplinary proceedings - HELD THAT:- It is beyond debate that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil proceedings. It is both possible and common in disciplinary matters to establish charges against a delinquent official by preponderance of probabilities and consequently terminate his services. But the same set of evidence may not be sufficient to take away his liberty under our criminal law jurisprudence - The employer always retains the right to conduct an independent disciplinary proceeding, irrespective of the outcome of a criminal proceeding. Furthermore, the CBI report dated 07.03.2000 does recommend major disciplinary action against the Appellant. The said report also buttresses the Respondent's case. Punishment and plea of leniency - HELD THAT:- The Appellant's contention that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is without merit. It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject of course to principles of proportionality and fair play. Such requirements emanate from Article 14 itself, which prohibits State authorities from treating varying-degrees of misdeeds with the same broad stroke. Determination of such proportionality is a function of not only the action or intention of the delinquent, but must also factor the financial effect and societal implication of such misconduct. But unlike in criminal cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts only interfere on grounds of proportionality when they find that the punishment awarded is inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of the Court itself is shocked. Thus, whereas imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave offences there is a need to send a clear message of deterrence to the society. Charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are prime examples of the latter category, and ought to be dealt with strictly. It is clear that the punishment of dismissal from service is far from disproportionate to the charges of corruption, fabrication and intimidation which have unanimously been proven against the Appellant. Taking any other view would be an anathema to service jurisprudence. If we were to hold that systematic corruption and its blatant cover-up are inadequate to attract dismissal from service, then the purpose behind having such major penalties, which are explicitly provided for Under Article 311 of the Constitution, would be obliterated. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Scope of Judicial Review in Service Matters.2. Appropriateness of Procedure and Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ).3. Effect of Criminal Enquiry on Disciplinary Proceedings.4. Punishment and Plea of Leniency.Detailed Analysis:I. Scope of Judicial Review in Service Matters:The court emphasized that judicial review is distinct from appellate power, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the decision's merits. It is meant to ensure fairness in treatment, not the correctness of the conclusion. Judicial review is used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, bias, or gross unreasonableness of outcome. The court cited precedents, including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, to underline that judicial review does not entail reappreciating evidence or acting as an appellate authority. The High Court's approach, which focused on the competence of the enquiry officer and adherence to natural justice rather than re-evaluating the evidence, was deemed appropriate.II. Appropriateness of Procedure and Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ):The appellant argued that the enquiry officer's questioning of witnesses violated the principle of 'nemo judex in sua causa' (no one should be a judge in their own cause). However, the court noted that under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, judges can ask questions to discover relevant facts. The enquiry officer's questioning was within jurisdiction, and no specific malice or bias was alleged. The appellant received a fair trial, with opportunities to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make representations. The process adhered to natural justice principles.III. Effect of Criminal Enquiry on Disciplinary Proceedings:The court highlighted the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, noting that charges in disciplinary matters can be established by a preponderance of probabilities, unlike the stricter standards in criminal trials. The CBI's decision not to file a criminal chargesheet did not preclude disciplinary action. The CBI's report recommended major disciplinary action against the appellant, supporting the respondents' case. The court referenced Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao and Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to emphasize that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings.IV. Punishment and Plea of Leniency:The appellant's contention that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate was rejected. The court noted that disciplinary authorities have wide discretion in imposing punishment, subject to proportionality and fair play. The severity of the misconduct, including corruption, fabrication, and intimidation, justified the punishment of dismissal. The court emphasized the need for deterrence in cases of grave offenses like corruption and misappropriation. The appellant's actions likely caused significant losses and damaged the reputation of the CISF, necessitating the severest penalty.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the proven charges of corruption and misconduct.