2024 (3) TMI 274 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceedings - Reliance on confessional statements made by accused persons during the investigation - Petitioner, who at the relevant point of time, was working as Superintendent of Central Excise - Landing of smuggled explosives, arms and ammunitions which were used in conducting bomb blast in Mumbai during the year 1993 - Penalty of compulsory retirement from Government service in terms of Rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1965 - entitled to only 65% of the full compensation of pension and gratuity under Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules - contravention of provisions of Rule 3(1), (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 - principles of judicial review. Whether the confessional statements made by accused persons during the course of investigation of a criminal case where the employees were not tried as co-accused and the accused persons retracted from the confessional statements in their deposition during the course of trial, forms sufficient evidence to bring home the charges in departmental proceedings? - Whether there is any evidence on record of the departmental proceedings drawn and conducted against the employees in these cases other than the confessional statements made by certain co-accused persons in the criminal case during the course of investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer, on the basis of which the charges leveled against them can be said to be proved or it is a case of no evidence? HELD THAT - The legal principle which emerges as per cumulative reading of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. is that any statement made before a Police Officer cannot be proved during the course of a criminal trial and accordingly no confession made by any person in custody of Police Officer shall be proved against such person. The statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. can, during the course of trial, be used only for the purpose of contradiction. Since in the instant matters, the Disciplinary Authority has relied upon the confessional statement made during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer of a criminal case pertaining to TADA, it is also noted that Section 15 of the TADA Act which carves an exception to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Cr.P.C., however, the exception is circumscribed by certain conditions. According to Section 15 of the TADA Act, a confession made by a person before a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police and recorded by such Police Officer, shall be admissible in trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence under the TADA Act - However, so far as the admissibility of confessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA Act against co-accused or abettor or conspirator is concerned, the proviso appended to Section 15 needs to be noticed, according to which, for such confessional statement to be admissible against co- accused, such co-accused should be charged and tried in the same case together with the accused whose confessional statement is relied upon as an evidence against co-accused. Analyzing the evidence available on record of the disciplinary proceedings, it is found that the department has relied upon the confessional statements made by four accused persons during the course of investigation of criminal case and these accused persons are (i) Uttam Potdar (smuggler) (ii) Mohd. Sultan Sayyed, Superintendent, Customs Officer (iii) R. K. Singh, Assistant Commissioner and (iv) Dawood M. Phanse (smuggler). These persons were not examined during the course of departmental proceedings; rather, to prove the confessional statement Police Officers were examined. Smt. Meeran Chadha Borwankar, Superintendent of Police was examined before the Inquiry Officer as witness in the departmental proceedings. This witness in the departmental proceedings has only stated she had recorded the confessional statement of Uttam Potdar during the course of investigation of the criminal case conducted by her and that the confessional statement was made by Uttam Potdar without any duress. The principle that any punishment order passed in disciplinary proceedings can be subjected to judicial review in a case where the punishment order is based on no evidence, is already well established. From these discussions, it is apparent and well established that it is a case where despite existence of no evidence to prove the charge in the departmental proceedings, the employees have been punished by the Disciplinary Authority. The evidence available on record is only the confessional statements made by the accused persons during the course of investigation of the criminal case which, for the reasons already stated, could not be made basis of inflicting the punishment upon the employees in this case. In absence of any evidence, it is not even a case where guilt of the employees in the departmental proceedings can be said to have been proved even on preponderance of probabilities. There are no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 13th June 2013 in Original Application No. 465 of 2010 was in error in dismissing the said Original Application - petition allowed.

Summary

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.