Division Bench Verdict That Reinstated Dismissed Officer Is Set Aside; Departmental Findings Upheld

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta heard the Airports Authority of India’s special leave petition challenging a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment that had allowed an intra-court writ appeal by a dismissed employee and set aside departmental orders. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench unlawfully re-appreciated evidence in an intra-court appeal and undermined concurrent findings recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities and the Single Judge.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned High Court judgment dated 1 March 2012, holding that the Division Bench erred in overturning concurrent findings without establishing perversity or an error of law. The Court observed that departmental proceedings required assessment on the “preponderance of probabilities” and not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that an intra-court appellate body must not disturb a Single Judge’s factual conclusions unless they were perverse. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. … Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials.” The Court further held that the impugned judgment was “unsustainable in the eyes of law” and ordered restoration of the Single Judge’s decision and the departmental penalty.

Background

The dispute arose after the respondent, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) employed by the Airports Authority of India, was arrested and convicted by the CBI Court in 1999 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Section 34 on allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The Disciplinary Authority dispensed with enquiry and dismissed him in July 2000. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent’s criminal appeal in July 2004 and acquitted him “by giving him the benefit of doubt.” The Chairman of the Authority treated that acquittal as not being an “honourable acquittal” and ordered fresh departmental proceedings; litigation followed through writ petitions and intra-court appeals.

An Enquiry Officer later held the respondent guilty on the basis of trap evidence, confession and corroborative departmental witnesses and the Disciplinary Authority and a constituted sub-committee (as appellate authority) confirmed dismissal. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the departmental findings in 2011, but the Division Bench in 2012 allowed the respondent’s intra-court appeal, finding procedural and evidentiary infirmities (including non-examination of the original complainant and reliance on witnesses whose evidence the criminal court had not accepted). The Airports Authority obtained special leave and stayed the Division Bench order.

The Supreme Court reviewed the record, noting prior final orders: the Division Bench’s 2007 decision that departmental proceedings were permissible had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in dismissal of an SLP in 2008. Relying on settled authorities, the Court held that the Division Bench in 2012 impermissibly re-appreciated evidence, failed to apply the correct standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings, and overlooked that trap and departmental witnesses were examined in the enquiry. The Court set aside the Division Bench judgment dated 1 March 2012, restored the Single Judge’s order dated 29 June 2011, and allowed the appeal. No costs were imposed; pending applications stood disposed of. Interim stay granted earlier by this Court remained governed by its order.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8414 OF 2017 Case Title: Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General For the Respondent(s): (Counsel for respondent referred to in the judgment; name not specified in the reported text)