The Supreme Court clarified that in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the Principle of Preponderance of Probabilities.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court by which the Division Bench allowed an Appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s Order.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.”

The Bench reiterated that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the Order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

ASG K.M. Nataraj appeared on behalf of the Appellant while AOR Bijan Kumar Ghosh appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent while working with the Appellant-AAI as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) was arrested along with a co-employee who was working as a Junior Engineer, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the representative of a contractor. Pursuantly, both were suspended and a CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) case was registered against them. The Special Judge found the Respondent guilty and the co-accused was acquitted and the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the High Court. While the Criminal Appeal was pending before the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority dispensed with the enquiry and ordered dismissal of the Respondent from service relying on the CBI Court’s Order.

Being aggrieved, the Respondent approached the Appellate Authority and his Appeal got rejected. Thereafter, he approached the High Court which directed that if the Respondent is acquitted in the pending Criminal Appeal, then it would be open for him to make an appropriate representation before the Appellant-Authority to reconsider the dismissal order, which would, in turn, be decided in accordance with law. Consequently, the said Criminal Appeal was allowed and the Respondent’s conviction was set aside. However, the Respondent preferred another Writ Petition and prayed to set aside the Order passed by the Chairman and to restrain the Appellant-Authority from initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against him. The High Court allowed the same and this was challenged by the Authority.

The Division Bench allowed its Intra-Court Appeal and being aggrieved, the Respondent filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex Court but the same was dismissed. Post enquiry, the High Court issued directions to the Appellant-Authority to form a sub-committee from amongst the Board Members to act as the Appellate Authority and decide the Appeal preferred by the Respondent. As the decision was against the Respondent, he approached the High Court but the Single Judge dismissed his Petition. On filing an Intra-Court Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the same and hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It is well settled principle of law that even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the courts are empowered to record conviction, where the decoy turns hostile, and the prosecution case is based purely on the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and the trap witnesses.”

The Court said that non-examination of the decoy cannot be treated to be fatal in the domestic enquiry where other evidence indicts the delinquent officer. Moreover, it reiterated that even a confession of the delinquent employee recorded by the Trap Laying Officer during the criminal investigation can be relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

“All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority while dealing with the case of the respondent”, it added.

The Court further noted that in an Intra-Court Writ Appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the Judgment passed by the Single Judge is permissible only if the same is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law.

“However, the Division Bench, in the present case, failed to record any such finding and rather, proceeded to delve into extensive re appreciation of evidence to overturn the judgment of the learned Single Judge”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the Respondent and that the Judgment rendered by the Single Judge is well-reasoned and unassailable.

“… we hold that the Division Bench, while exercising the intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as affirmed by the learned Single Judge”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Division Bench’s Judgment.

Cause Title- Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 149)

Appearance:

Appellant: ASG K.M. Nataraj, Advocates Neetica Sharma, Shrinkhla Tiwari, and Tavinder Sidhu.

Respondent: AOR Bijan Kumar Ghosh

Click here to read/download the Judgment