On 22nd October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that scope of judicial review in departmental inquiry is very limited, i.e., the charge need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on preponderance. It was also held that with regard to conviction in the criminal trial of charges of bribery and the same is not relevant in the departmental proceedings as the charges have to be proved only on the preponderance of probability.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash and/or set aside the Impugned Order dated 03.11.2020 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Board of Directors and the order dated 16 July 2020 passed by the Managing Director has been confirmed.
It is a case wherein the petitioner / Charged Officer (‘CO’, for short) was the Area Manager of the respondent's District Office at Moga, Punjab. The respondent is an organization created and run by the Government of India. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the Order dated November 03, 2020. Order dated November 03, 2020, confirms the Order of penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ dated July 16, 2020, passed under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 by the DA of the Food Corporation of India.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:
The following contention has been submitted by Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner:
1. It was submitted that the Impugned Order dated November 03, 2020, which affirms the earlier order dated July 16, 2020, is without reliable evidence which could connect the petitioner with the Government Currency notes recovered from the petitioner's office and therefore the Impugned Orders amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice.
2. It is further contended by her that the respondent has erred in passing the impugned orders as the order of removal from service as well as the appellate order, are based on no evidence or proof, and at best is a case of suspicion, which cannot entail the penalty of removal.
3. Ms. Gogoi stated that the main purpose behind the investigation was to harass and humiliate the petitioner because the said investigation was carried out based on a complaint filed by Rohit Mittal the owner of M/s Sran Mills against whom the petitioner and his team had previously taken action.
4. Ms. Gogoi also stated that since the CBI officials in the Final Report could not link the petitioner to the GC notes apprehended in his office.
5. It was also contended by Ms. Gogoi that the Impugned Orders suffers from the vice of perversity and Wednesbury unreasonableness and is clearly against the Doctrine of Proportionality.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
The following contention has been submitted by Mr. Manoj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent:
1. It was submitted that the Penalty Order was confirmed by Impugned Order dated November 03, 2020. The Board while passing the Impugned Order after due deliberations gave the following reasons that it was highly improbable that anybody could have planted money in the flush tank with the intention to trap the Petitioner.
2. It was submitted that the court in its supervisory jurisdiction, should not embark upon re-appreciation of evidence or facts.
3. It was also submitted that that GC notes aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2.52 lakhs were recovered from petitioner's flush tank of the toilet attached to his exclusive chamber and from the drawer of his table.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Manoj that the maxim „Res ipsa loquitur‟ is squarely applicable in the instant case and once this doctrine is found to be applicable, the burden of proof shifts on the petitioner.
6. It was the submission of Mr. Manoj that it is clear that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus to rebut the prima facie case made out against him. In the absence of any credible or cogent defense, it must be concluded that those GC notes were placed by the petitioner himself in his chamber.
Furthermore, Mr. Manoj submitted that unlike in criminal proceedings, where charges need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Standard of Proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability.
OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT:
The following observation has been made by the hon'ble court:
1. No motive has been imputed to Constable Balkar Singh for planting the money.
2. It may have happened that the petitioner may have used the flush before putting the GC notes which made the lush unworkable when Constable Balkar Singh went to the toilet and pressed the flush.
3. It is logical to presume, in the absence of any material to the contrary that the money which was found in the drawer / in the flush of the toilet in the office of the petitioner, belonged to the petitioner as he could not explain the source of that money.
Thus, the court held that the petitioner could not satisfactorily give any reasonable ground of the recovery of money from his office / toilet and from the table drawers and in the absence of any evidence that someone has planted the money to trap the petitioner of serious charges against him, the charges against him have been proved.
Read Judgment ;
SOURCE ; latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments