Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 493 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the appellant could not have taken recourse to clause (b) of the proviso appended to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India? Whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated?
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of dismissal without holding a disciplinary proceeding. 2. Admissibility of confession in departmental proceedings. 3. Applicability of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act in departmental proceedings. 4. Applicability of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Dismissal Without Holding a Disciplinary Proceeding: The respondent, a Constable in the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service without holding any disciplinary proceeding as per the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal and the High Court held that the appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds for such dismissal. Consequently, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated, leading to the respondent's dismissal again after being found guilty. The Tribunal set aside this dismissal, but the Supreme Court found that the dismissal was justified based on the evidence presented in the departmental proceeding. 2. Admissibility of Confession in Departmental Proceedings: The Tribunal and the High Court opined that the confession made by the respondent in police custody was not admissible in evidence. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the embargo contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable in departmental proceedings. The Court emphasized that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. 3. Applicability of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act in Departmental Proceedings: The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which render confessions made to police officers inadmissible in criminal trials, do not apply to departmental proceedings. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that these rules of evidence are not applicable in departmental inquiries. The Court also noted that the respondent did not retract his confession or claim it was extracted by force, reinforcing the admissibility of the confession in the departmental proceeding. 4. Applicability of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987: The respondent argued that his discharge from the criminal case should protect him under Rule 12 of the 1987 Rules, which applies to individuals tried and acquitted by a criminal court. The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 12 was not applicable as the respondent was discharged, not acquitted. Therefore, the departmental proceeding and subsequent dismissal were valid despite the discharge in the criminal case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, thereby upholding the dismissal of the respondent from service. The Court reiterated that the provisions of the Evidence Act concerning the inadmissibility of confessions do not apply to departmental proceedings, and the standard of proof in such proceedings is based on the preponderance of probability. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
|