The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and held that there was sufficient material available on record to prove that the Respondent was guilty of accepting the bribe.
This Court was of the view that in a domestic inquiry, a contradiction in the evidence of the complainant with regard to the exact person who is handed over gratification would not create a doubt to give benefit thereof to the Respondent. The same could have been relevant in criminal cases but not domestic inquiries.
Brief Facts:
In 1990, the Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner as a driver and, subsequently, got promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. On 27.10.2014, the Respondent was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on the allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The disciplinary authority passed the order dated 20.01.2016 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent with the further direction that the period of suspension from 03.11.2014 to 30.01.2015 shall be debited from the leave due. When the order of disciplinary authority was challenged, Labour Court set aside the dismissal order by holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by petitioners was not fair, legal or proper.
In this petition, the Petitioner challenged the order passed by Labour Court by which the penalty imposed on the Respondent was declared illegal and further directed to reinstate him in service along with full back wages and continuity of service from 20.01.2016. This order was subsequently confirmed by Industrial Court in a revision.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the charge in the domestic enquiry was to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and that test was satisfied on the production of evidence of the complainant. He further submitted that sufficient evidence was available on record to support the findings of guilt against the Respondent.
Submission of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent drew the attention of the Court towards the stark contradiction in the evidence of the complainant where in his deposition, he had said that the bribe amount was paid directly to the Respondent, however, the charge levelled against the Respondent alleged payment of bribe amount to the third person. The Counsel submitted that the complainant contradicted himself in the deposition, and Labour Court rightly set aside the dismissal order on this ground. He further submitted that even the test of preponderance of probability was not satisfied in the present case as apart from a contradiction in the evidence of the complainant, no other corroborative evidence was produced in the enquiry.
Observation of the Court
This Court observed that in light of the contradiction in the evidence of the complainant, a question arises as to what effect such contradiction will have on the finding of guilt of misconduct alleged. To answer this, it is imperative to look into what standard of proof is needed in domestic inquiry. The Court relied on a catena of judgments of the Apex Court and held that charge in the departmental enquiry is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not required to be proved on the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus in domestic inquiry, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
In the present case, there was a contradiction with regard to the exact person to whom the bribe amount was handed over has crept in. The Court believed that had this been a criminal trial, such contradiction would make the testimony of the complainant unbelievable.
However, as observed earlier, in a domestic enquiry, one has to examine whether the event as alleged has ‘probably’ taken place after considering the overall evidence on record. Applying the test of preponderance of probability, even the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification can be held to be proved based on the deposition of the complainant.
Therefore, some minor contradiction in the evidence of the complainant cannot be a reason to let the respondents scot-free in respect of such serious allegations.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Ravindra Adhar Gosavi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 12267 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Dharmraj Shinde
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Shrikant S. Patil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :