Central Excise Superintendent's disciplinary action quashed as confessional statements insufficient evidence for departmental proceedings

The Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging disciplinary proceedings against a Central Excise Superintendent. The petitioner faced compulsory retirement and reduced pension benefits based on confessional statements linking him to 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts. The HC held that confessional statements made during criminal investigation, where the employee wasn't tried as co-accused and accusers later retracted statements, cannot form sufficient evidence for departmental proceedings. Under Evidence Act Sections 25-26 and CrPC Sections 161-162, police statements cannot be proved in trial. Even under TADA Act Section 15, confessions are admissible against co-accused only if charged and tried together. The HC found no evidence beyond inadmissible confessional statements to prove charges, constituting a case of "no evidence" warranting judicial review intervention.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessional statements made by accused persons during criminal investigation in departmental proceedings.
2. Nature of evidence sufficient to prove a charge in departmental proceedings.
3. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the punishment order passed in departmental proceedings.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The court examined whether confessional statements made by accused persons during the investigation of a criminal case could be used as evidence in departmental proceedings against employees who were not tried as co-accused. The court concluded that such confessional statements could not be relied upon to prove charges in departmental proceedings if the employees were not charged or tried in the same criminal case. The court emphasized that statements made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are not admissible in evidence in criminal trials, except for contradiction purposes. The court also noted that under Section 15 of the TADA Act, confessional statements are admissible against co-accused only if they are charged and tried in the same case.

2. Nature of Evidence in Departmental Proceedings:
The court reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal trials. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Heem Singh and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dilip Paul, to emphasize that all material logically probative to a prudent mind is permissible in departmental inquiries. However, the court also noted that mere suspicion cannot replace proof, and the findings must be based on some evidence with a degree of definiteness.

3. Scope of Judicial Review:
The court clarified that while judicial review under Article 226 is not an appellate jurisdiction, it is permissible to interfere in cases where the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on no evidence, are perverse, or violate principles of natural justice. The court cited United Bank of India Vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee and other judgments to outline circumstances where judicial review is warranted, such as procedural irregularities, findings based on no evidence, or conclusions that no reasonable person would have reached.

Conclusion:
The court found that the disciplinary authority's reliance on confessional statements made during the criminal investigation was not permissible evidence in the departmental proceedings against the employees. The court concluded that the evidence available on record was insufficient to prove the charges against the employees, resulting in a case of no evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's judgment in Original Application No. 465 of 2010, quashed the punishment orders, and dismissed the Union of India's writ petition, thereby granting the employees all consequential benefits.

---