Threshold To Establish Guilt Is Lower In Departmental Enquiry, Acquittal In Criminal Case Not A Bar To Hold Workman Guilty Of Misconduct: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court, while setting aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a negligent driving case, has observed that the threshold required for establishing guilt is lower in departmental proceedings, and acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot serve as a bar in departmental proceedings to hold the accused guilty.
The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) filed a writ petition seeking the setting aside of an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal wherein it held that the stoppage of increments imposed on the Respondent was unjustified and he was entitled to receive all benefits stopped by an order passed disciplinary authority.
The Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judicial dictum, this Court is of the view that preponderance of probabilities establishing guilt and material on record are sufficient grounds to hold one accountable for misconduct and hence, the threshold required for establishing guilt is much lower in departmental proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. Both proceedings are independent and exclusive of each other and, therefore, the acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot serve as a bar in enquiry proceedings to hold the accused guilty of misconduct.”
Advocate Uday N Tiwary appeared for the Petitioner.
The Respondent-workman joined DTC at the post of crew driver in 1988, and in 1991, while on duty, he was involved in a fatal accident where a cyclist died due to a collision. A committee inspected the incident and concluded that the Respondent was negligent while driving. The Committee initiated disciplinary proceedings and he was punished with “stoppage of next three due increments with cumulative effect”. An FIR was also registered against him under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC, and the Trial Court acquitted him. In the interregnum, the Respondent-workman challenged the order of the committee before the Industrial Tribunal.
The Court raised the issue of whether the exoneration in criminal proceedings could be taken as a factor to exonerate the Respondent-workman from the punishment imposed in a domestic enquiry. While relying on Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya(SC 1997), the Court said, “A departmental proceeding does not take place in a Court of law having judicial authority, hence, the requirements of sufficient proof and the procedure followed therein are entirely different from a criminal proceeding… the trial before the concerned criminal court has to be in strict accordance with the statutory provisions of evidence and procedure whereas enquiry proceedings have to be in accordance with the relevant service rules. Hence, the strict standard of proof mandated by the provisions governing rules of evidence is not required in a departmental proceeding.”
The Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and said “While driving the vehicle, the respondent workman had to exercise due care and precaution and lack of such due care resulted in a minor‟s death. It cannot be said that respondent workman had no role in the accident and it was all the result of external factors. The respondent is guilty of negligence as he failed to exercise necessary care and precaution which resulted in the unfortunate accident.”
The Court was of the considered view that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the respondent workman which makes the punishment imposed upon him adequate and right for not showing due care while performing his duties and held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that the rules of evidence are distinct in the proceedings of a criminal trial and a domestic enquiry conducted by a department.
The Court concluded, “It is observed by this Court that the learned Labour Court failed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry which is“preponderance of probability” and applied the standard of proof required for a criminal trial, hence, a case for judicial review is made out…This Court is of the view that the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner corporation wherein the punishment of stoppage of three due increments as inflicted upon the respondent workman was in accordance with the law and the said finding was arrived at after establishing the facts from the material placed on its record as a result of which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur came into play and the burden to prove the contrary was on the respondent workman who was in control of the bus causing the accident.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and disposed of the writ petition.
Cause Title: M/s D.T.C. v. Rajinder Singh, Driver (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC: 4200)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Uday N Tiwary and Akshat Tiwary