Decision In Departmental Proceedings Must Be Arrived At Based On 'Legally Admissible Evidence': Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasized that even in departmental proceedings, a decisions must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. 

The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by one Police Constable against the imposition of major penalty of postponement of increments for 2 years with effect on future increments and pension imposed by his employer in background of result of disciplinary inquiry into bribery charges.

A single-bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed, "Further, the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the Revision Authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe financial consequences on the Petitioner, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. Though the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding, the principles of natural justice are. As the order of the Enquiry Officer was based on surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence."

The petitioner was represented by Advocate K.R. Srinivas while Government Pleader appeared for the Respondents. 

The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he used to visit the house of one Jelli Peddanna and demand “Matka Mamool” from him. However, the said suspension was later revoked. A charge was framed against the Petitioner for which he submitted his explanation denying the said charge. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report holding that the said charge was proved. The Respondent via the impugned order imposed major penalty of Postponement of Increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension. The appeal, revision and presentation of the petitioner against it was however rejected without any assigned reason.

The case of the petitioner is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report are based on the statements of one witness who categorically stated that the Petitioner did not visit the house of Jelli Peddanna and did not demand any money and the wife of Peddanna also confirmed the same. However, without any evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the Petitioner gained over the witness and at his instance only Peddanna stated in such a way.  

His Counsel among other things argued that when in proof of his sickness, the Petitioner filed a medical certificate before the Enquiry Officer, it was vaguely observed by the Enquiry Officer that, though the charged officer was on leave, he stayed in Guntakal which shows that in the free time, he visited the house of Jelli Peddanna and the medical certificate was not considered on that ground. He further submitted that the enquiry report is based on surmises and conjectures and hence, prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orders.  The Court after analyzing the facts on the record found the findings of the Enquiry Officer contrary to the record.

"To probablize the version of the charged officer, he has filed the medical record to show that, during the relevant period, he was on sick leave. Such being the case, the Enquiry Officer opined that the charge is proved and there is no evidence that the charged officer oftenly visiting the house of P.W.1. It appears that the finding on the charged officer is contra to the material placed on record. As such, imposing punishment of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. For imposing such penalty, the enquiry has to be done by following the due process as per the Rules in vogue. In the present case, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are contra to the record which was not interfered even at appellate stage or in the revision," the court observed.

Further, the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the Revision Authority are not supported by any reason, the court concluded. The petition was accordingly allowed. 

Cause Title: G. Shrikanth vs. The Superintendent of Police 

Click here to read/ download the order