1996 JTR(SC) 1858
1997 AIR(SC) 2274 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2145 ; 1997 1 CLR 188 ; 1997 90 FJR 28 ; 1997 75 FLR 100 ; 1996 10 JT 571 ; 1998 3 LLJ 1207 ; 1997 1 LLN 130 ; 1996 8 Scale 153 ; 1996 11 SCC 600 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 408 ; 1996 SCR 433 ; 1997 1 SCT 333 ; 1997 1 SLR 286 ; 1996 KHC 1365 ; 1996 8 Supreme 190
1996(8) Supreme 190
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Orissa Mining Corporation & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Ananda Chandra Prusty -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14163 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11581 of 1996)
Decided on 5-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Inderjit Ray, and Raj Kumar Mahta, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a disciplinary or a departmental inquiry, question of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and the nature of explanation put forward by delinquent officer.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution confer the Supreme Court with discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The service law principles applicable to departmental or disciplinary inquiries under the rules governing the conduct of public servants govern the assessment of charges framed against a public servant. The interplay between the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 and the procedural fairness of disciplinary proceedings is relevant when determining the correctness of the burden of proof assigned by a subordinate court.
(B) In disciplinary inquiries, there is no absolute burden of proof always lying upon the department; the burden of proof depends upon the nature of the charges and the nature of the explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. The standard of proof in disciplinary matters is distinct from the criminal standard, and the department is not required to examine all possible evidence but may shift the burden based on the officers explanation.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, an Assistant Accounts Officer, was charged with making false notings to recommend sanction of loans and failing to maintain proper control and supervision over staff registers. An inquiry officer found the first charge established and the second charge partially proved, resulting in dismissal. The respondent challenged the dismissal in the Orissa High Court, which quashed the order, holding that the burden of proving the first charge rested with the department and was wrongly placed on the respondent, and that there was insufficient oral evidence for the second charge.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the misplacement of the burden of proof on the respondent for the first charge, but declined to interfere with the dismissal under Article 136, observing that the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the charges and the explanation, did not warrant interference. The Court clarified the position of law on burden shifting in disciplinary proceedings.
Issues:
Whether the burden of proving the charge of false notings rested with the respondent or the department, whether the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings equates to that in criminal cases, and whether the High Courts findings necessitated interference under Article 136.
Ratio Decidendi:
The burden of proof in disciplinary inquiries is not static and depends on the nature of the charges and the explanation provided by the officer; the department must prove its case on the basis of its own evidence where the officer provides a plausible explanation, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is a clear misapprehension of law or fact.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed with no costs, upholding the dismissal set aside by the High Court.
(A) The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution confer the Supreme Court with discretionary jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The service law principles applicable to departmental or disciplinary inquiries under the rules governing the conduct of public servants govern the assessment of charges framed against a public servant. The interplay between the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 and the procedural fairness of disciplinary proceedings is relevant when determining the correctness of the burden of proof assigned by a subordinate court.
(B) In disciplinary inquiries, there is no absolute burden of proof always lying upon the department; the burden of proof depends upon the nature of the charges and the nature of the explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. The standard of proof in disciplinary matters is distinct from the criminal standard, and the department is not required to examine all possible evidence but may shift the burden based on the officers explanation.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, an Assistant Accounts Officer, was charged with making false notings to recommend sanction of loans and failing to maintain proper control and supervision over staff registers. An inquiry officer found the first charge established and the second charge partially proved, resulting in dismissal. The respondent challenged the dismissal in the Orissa High Court, which quashed the order, holding that the burden of proving the first charge rested with the department and was wrongly placed on the respondent, and that there was insufficient oral evidence for the second charge.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the misplacement of the burden of proof on the respondent for the first charge, but declined to interfere with the dismissal under Article 136, observing that the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the charges and the explanation, did not warrant interference. The Court clarified the position of law on burden shifting in disciplinary proceedings.
Issues:
Whether the burden of proving the charge of false notings rested with the respondent or the department, whether the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings equates to that in criminal cases, and whether the High Courts findings necessitated interference under Article 136.
Ratio Decidendi:
The burden of proof in disciplinary inquiries is not static and depends on the nature of the charges and the explanation provided by the officer; the department must prove its case on the basis of its own evidence where the officer provides a plausible explanation, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is a clear misapprehension of law or fact.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed with no costs, upholding the dismissal set aside by the High Court.
ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent was an Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of the appellant-corporation. Two charges were framed against him and a disciplinary inquiry held.The first charge was that the respondent made certain false notings while recommending sanction of loans to certain persons to the effect that no loan was outstanding against them.On the basis of such false notings, loans were sanctioned to them, contrary to the rules. The second charge was that he failed to exercise proper control and supervision on the staff on account of which the relevant registers and record were not kept upto date. The inquiry officer reported that while charge no.1 is established, charge No. 2 is proved only partially.On the basis of the said report the respondent was dismissed from service, which he challenged by way of writ petition in the Orissa High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition holding: (a) the burden of proving the first charge rested with the department.The inquiry officer, however, has wrongly cast the burden of disproving the charge upon the respondent. The department must succeed on the strength of its own evidence and not on the basis of weakness or the failure of the delinquent officer to prove his innocence. Since the inquiry officer has proceeded on a wrong hypothesis not permissible in law, the finding recorded by him on charge No.1 is liable to be quashed. (b) No rules have been cited which show which officer is required to maintain which register nor is there any oral evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. In the case of this charge too, the burden has been wrongly cast upon the respondent to prove his innocence. Accordingly the High Court quashed the order of punishment impugned in the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-corporation submitted that the question of burden of proof becomes irrelevant when both parties have adduced their evidence. Learned counsel also complained that the High Court seems to suggest that the standard of proof required in disciplinary matters is similar to the one obtaining in criminal cases. Counsel submitted that while saying that it is not reappreciating the evidence, the High Court has precisely done that. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court.
4. In a disciplinary or a departmental inquiry, the question of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and the nature of explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. In this sense, the learned counsel for the appellant may be justified in complaining that the standard of proof stipulated by the High Court in this case sounds inappropriate to a disciplinary inquiry. At the same time we must say that certain observations made by the inquiry officer in his report do lend themselves to the criticism offered by the High Court.
5. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us hereinabove viz.,that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of proof, always lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry.The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanation. For example take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to certian ineligible persons. The respondent s case was that those notings were based upon certain documents produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings made by the respondent.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline to interfere in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution except to clarify the position of law.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******