Domestic Enquiry Officer Performing Quasi-Judicial Function Must Arrive At Conclusion Based On Preponderance Of Probability: Madras HC

Finding that the petitioner was admitted into hospital as inpatient, and therefore, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that his absence from duty was wilful, the Madras High Court quashed the order of his suspension and directed the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai, to treat the period of his suspension from Sep 11, 2010 to Jan 26, 2011 as duty for all purposes and to pay salary and allowance for the said period in the post of Head Constable.

The High Court held so while considering a specific case of the petitioner that he was assaulted by the Inspector of Protection Force and was admitted in the government hospital, and resultantly unable to join duty and remained absent for two days.

Noting that the joining memo along with the discharge summary was totally not considered and charges were framed against the petitioner, the High Court construed it as an illegal action and only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that “Although the charges in the departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e., beyond all reasonable doubt, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the document must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges based on the materials on record”.

“While being so, the enquiry officer cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. The enquiry officer cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts and cannot shift the burden of proof. The enquiry officer cannot reject the testimony of the witnesses only based on surmises and Conjectures”, added the Bench.

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the document must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of the materials on record, the Court held.

Advocate K. S. Govinda Prasad appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate S. Janarthanam appeared for the Respondent.

The Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was a head constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). During his services, he was assaulted by an Inspector of the Protection force and was admitted to a Government Hospital. The Petitioner lodged a complaint before the concerned police station but the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition seeking direction to take appropriate action on his complaint. Meanwhile, he received a letter of suspension from RPF stating that he misbehaved with the Inspector of the Protection force and did not report for duty. Moreover, he was demoted to a Constable from the post of Head Constable with a basic pay for three years. The Court directed the concerned jurisdiction police to register a case on the complaint lodged by the petitioner if any cognizable offence is made out. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police registered an FIR against the Inspector of Protection Force. Thereafter, the authority who registered the FIR simply closed the FIR as a mistake of fact after looking into the accident register, discharge summary and other documents produced by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority also took over those documents and mechanically concluded that both charges were proved against the petitioner.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the Petitioner was assaulted by the counter party viz., Inspector of Protection Force and as such he was admitted in the hospital and he produced discharge summary that he was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for two days.

“In fact, this Court directed the concerned jurisdiction police to register a case on the complaint lodged by the petitioner if any cognizable offence is made out. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police registered a FIR in Crime No.16 of 2011, as against the Inspector of Protection Force viz., E. Thaninayagam. Thereafter, the authority who registered the FIR simply closed the FIR as mistake of fact after looking into the accident register, discharge summary and other documents produced by the petitioner”, added the Bench.

The Bench went on to observe that though the petitioner was alleged that he misbehaved with the Inspector of Protection Force, no complaint had been lodged against the petitioner for the said occurrence by the Inspector of Protection Force. Instead of, the petitioner sustained injury and lodged complaint.

The High Court therefore directed the respondent to treat the period of absence from Sep 04, 2010 to Sep 06, 2010 as duty for all purposes and to pay wages and other monetary benefits, in the post of Head Constable.

Cause Title: A. Rajasekar vs. Union of India

Click here to read/download the Order