Departmental misconduct on preponderance of probabilities stands despite criminal acquittal; judicial review cannot reweigh evidence absent perversity.

In departmental proceedings, misconduct may be proved on preponderance of probabilities, and a criminal acquittal does not automatically exonerate the employee; on the evidence of prior hostility, a death threat, presence near the scene, and other linking circumstances, the finding of misconduct was sustainable. In judicial review, the court cannot reappreciate evidence as a first appellate forum and may interfere only where the finding lacks evidence, ignores relevant material, or is perverse; the High Court exceeded that limit, so reinstatement was unsustainable. The disciplinary dismissal was restored, while the direction on no back wages remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's involvement in the alleged murder, assessed in departmental proceedings, could be sustained on the standard of preponderance of probabilities despite his acquittal in the criminal trial; (ii) whether the High Court, in judicial review, was justified in reappreciating the evidence and directing reinstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's involvement in the alleged murder, assessed in departmental proceedings, could be sustained on the standard of preponderance of probabilities despite his acquittal in the criminal trial.

Analysis: The disciplinary charge was broader than the criminal accusation alone and went to the respondent's suitability as a police constable and the impact of his conduct on public confidence in the force. The standard in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically exonerate the employee in disciplinary proceedings. The evidence showed prior hostility, a death threat, presence near the scene, and circumstances linking the respondent to the incident, which were sufficient for the employer to reach a finding of misconduct on the departmental standard.

Conclusion: The finding of misconduct was legally sustainable and was not displaced by the criminal acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in judicial review, was justified in reappreciating the evidence and directing reinstatement.

Analysis: Judicial review over disciplinary matters is limited to examining whether the finding is based on some evidence, whether relevant material was ignored, and whether the decision is perverse. The High Court treated the matter as if it were a first appeal, gave overriding weight to selected portions of the cross-examination, and failed to appreciate the evidence as a whole. The departmental authorities had considered material evidence relevant to misconduct and the penalty could not be interfered with on the ground adopted by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the proper limits of judicial review and the reinstatement order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary dismissal was restored, while the direction regarding no back wages was left undisturbed and retiral benefits were directed to be worked out notionally on the basis stated in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, misconduct may be established on preponderance of probabilities, and a criminal acquittal does not bar departmental action; judicial review cannot reweigh evidence unless the finding is unsupported by evidence or is perverse.

---