The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian in the case titled Union of India v. Dalbir Singh dated 21-09-2021 express their views on whether the burden of proof in departmental proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts of the case:

The Petitioner was a General Duty Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). It was alleged that the petitioner has fired from his service revolver on Head Constable Shri Harish Chander and Deputy Commandant Shri Hari Singh resulting in the death of Shri Harish Chander and injuries to Shri Hari Singh. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, in appeal the HC acquitted him of the charges framed against him by giving the benefit of the doubt for the reason that 20 cartridges were fired but only 7 empties were recovered whereas none of the bullets have been recovered.

Later in the departmental proceedings the Commandant, punishing authority, returned a finding considering the evidence led by the Department that the petitioner has misused his service weapon and is thus not entitled to be retained in the disciplinary force. Such order was affirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional Authority.  The High Court set aside these orders and held that the Respondents had to prove that the weapon which was issued to the Petitioner was misused by him.

Submission of the Petitioner:

The petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the appellants were given an opportunity to produce the registers of the entrustment of S.L.R. to the petitioner. But it was stated that the record was not available being an old record as the incident was of 1993. The enquiry was initiated in 2013 after the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal trial. Therefore, in the absence of the best evidence of registers, the oral evidence of use of official weapon stands proven on the basis of oral testimony of the departmental witnesses.

Supreme Court’s Observation and Judgment:         

The Supreme Court held:

“The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct. The delinquent such as the petitioner could examine himself to rebut the allegations of misconduct including use of personal weapon. In fact, the reliance of the petitioner is upon a communication dated 1.5.2014 made to the Commandant through the inquiry officer. He has stated that he has not fired on higher officers and that he was out of camp at the alleged time of incident. Therefore, a false case has been made against him. His further stand is that it was a terrorist attack and terrorists have fired on the Camp. None of the departmental witnesses have been even suggested about any terrorist attack or that the petitioner was out of camp. PW-5 Brij Kishore Singh deposed that 3-4 soldiers had taken the Self-Loading Rifle (S.L.R.) of the petitioner in their possession."
"Therefore, the allegations in the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 that the petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence placed before them. It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that there was any infraction of any rule or regulations or the violation of the principles of natural justice. The best available evidence had been produced by the appellants in the course of enquiry conducted after the long lapse of time. The order passed by the High Court is not sustainable."

Hence, the same was set aside and the order of punishment of dismissal passed on 21.12.1996 as affirmed in appeal and revision restored.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :