2016 (10) TMI 718 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceedings - imposition of punishment as per Annexure A9 order, whereby two increments were barred for a period of two years with cumulative effect - alternative remedy of revision - statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C - Held that - A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used to contradict a witness. It is settled law that in the case of a disciplinary proceeding , the guilt need not be established beyond any reasonable doubt, unlike a criminal proceeding and that preponderance of probability is sufficient in the former case. There is no allergy even to hear-say evidence , if it is having some nexus. The verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law and is not liable to be assailed in any circumstance. No tenable ground brought to the notice. Interference declined and the Original Petition fails and dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against interference declined by Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings resulting in punishment of barring increments for receiving bribe.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Sepoy at Calicut Airport, faced disciplinary action for alleged involvement in receiving bribes. Despite not being an accused in the criminal case, a domestic enquiry found her guilty, leading to the punishment of barring two increments for two years. The petitioner appealed against this decision, but the appellate authority upheld the punishment. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Tribunal through an Original Application (O.A.) seeking various reliefs, which was initially dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedy by way of revision. However, upon filing an Original Petition (O.P.) challenging this, the High Court directed a reconsideration of the case by the Tribunal.

The petitioner argued that the evidence against her was insufficient, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding the evidential value of Section 164 statements under the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court acknowledged the legal position but emphasized that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from criminal cases. It clarified that in disciplinary proceedings, guilt need not be established beyond reasonable doubt, and hearsay evidence with some nexus is admissible. Referring to precedents and the evidence on record, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Original Petition.

In conclusion, the High Court analyzed the evidence, legal principles, and precedents in the case of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court emphasized the lower standard of proof required in disciplinary cases compared to criminal cases and found no merit in the petitioner's arguments against the Tribunal's decision. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the Original Petition, upholding the Tribunal's ruling on the disciplinary action against the petitioner.