Civil courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in departmental proceedings: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that civil courts have no authority to re-evaluate evidence assessed by departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings. The court clarified that the findings of departmental authorities remain beyond judicial scrutiny of civil courts, but the quantum of punishment can be reconsidered if found to be disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The ruling, issued by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, came in a case where a Punjab Police constable, dismissed from service without an inquiry, challenged his termination. The constable was proceeded against following the escape of a hardcore smuggler from custody, but was later acquitted in the criminal trial. His co-accused, who was similarly dismissed, was reinstated following a civil court order.

During the hearing, the Bench was informed that the petitioner was assigned to escort the accused from Amritsar to Delhi for his court appearance in a case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. He was to be transported by train. However, the constable and a head constable opted to use a private car. The accused escaped from custody during the journey, resulting in an FIR being registered against the police personnel.

The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police dismissed the petitioner and his co-accused on January 22, 2008, without holding any inquiry, invoking “Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India”. The petitioner’s appeals to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Director-General of Police were also dismissed.

The petitioner’s co-accused challenged his dismissal in a civil court. The Amritsar District Judge set aside the dismissal, ordering his reinstatement without back wages while granting the department liberty to hold a regular departmental inquiry. The petitioner, citing this order, sought reinstatement based on parity. During the hearing, the State counsel conceded that both individuals were acquitted in the criminal trial and the co-accused had already been reinstated.

After examining the records, Justice Bansal held that the petitioner had been dismissed without a proper inquiry, and that the reasons given for dispensing with the inquiry were not plausible. The court observed that the inquiry could be waived only if it was genuinely impracticable to hold one. A mere statement that an inquiry was not practicable did not satisfy constitutional or statutory requirements. “The respondent instead of straight away dismissing the petitioner could have put him under suspension and thereafter conducted an inquiry,” the court asserted.

Taking into consideration the petitioner’s acquittal and the reinstatement of his co-accused, Justice Bansal ordered his reinstatement. The department was granted liberty to conduct a regular departmental inquiry as per Rules 16.24 and 16.37 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Before parting with the judgment, Justice Bansal expressed doubt about the maintainability of civil suit against orders passed by quasi judicial authorities. The Bench asserted that the civil courts were re-appreciating entire evidence led during departmental enquiry and setting aside orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities discharging quasi judicial function.

“The Supreme Court time and again has held that scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The courts have no authority to re-appreciate evidence examined by departmental authorities. The quantum of punishment can be re-considered if Court finds that it is disproportionate to the alleged offence,” Justice Bansal concluded.