Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ORISSA MINING CORPORATION APPELLANTS AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.
Leave granted.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
The respondent was an Assistant Accounts Officer in
the service of the appellant-corporation. Two charges were
framed against him and a disciplinary inquiry held. The
first charge was that the respondent made certain false
notings while recommending sanction of loans to certain
persons to the effect that no loan was outstanding against
them. On tile basis of such false notings, loans were
sanctioned to them, contrary to the rules. The second charge
was that he failed to exercise proper control and
supervision on the staff on account of which the relevant
registers and record were not kept upto date. The inquiry
officer reported that while charge No.1 is established,
charge No.2 is proved only partially. On the basis of the
said report the respondent was dismissed from service, which
he challenged by way of writ petition in the Orissa High
Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition holding:
(a) the burden of proving the first charge rested with the
department. The inquiry officer, however, has wrongly cast
the burden of disproving the charge upon the respondent. The
department must succeed on the strength of its own evidence
and not on the basis of weakness or the failure of the
delinquent officer to prove his innocence. Since the inquiry
officer has proceeded on a wrong hypothesis not permissible
in, law, the finding recorded by him on charge No.1 is
liable to be quashed. (b) No rules have been cited which
show which officer is required to maintain which register
nor is there any oral evidence to establish the guilt of the
respondent. In the case of this charge too, the burden has
been wrongly cast upon the respondent to prove his
innocence. Accordingly the High Court quashed the order of
punishment impugned in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant-corporation submitted
that the question of burden of proof becomes irrelevant when
both parties have adduced their evidence. Learned counsel
also complained that the High Court seems to suggest that
the standard of proof required in disciplinary matters is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
similar to the one obtaining in criminal cases. Counsel
submitted that while saying that it is not reappreciating
the evidence, the High Court has precisely done that. On the
other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported
the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court.
In a disciplinary or a departmental inquiry, the
question of burden of proof depends upon the nature of
charges and the nature of explanation put forward by the
delinquent officer. In this sense, the learned counsel for
the Appellant may be justified in complaining that the
standard of proof stipulated by the High Court in this case
sounds inappropriate to a disciplinary inquiry. At the same
time we must say that certain observations made by the
inquiry officer in his report do lend themselves to the
criticism offered by the High Court.
On a consideration of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we
are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position
with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us
hereinabove viz., that there is no such thing as an absolute
burden of proof, always lying upon the department in a
disciplinary inquiry. The burden of proof depends upon the
nature of explanation and the nature of charges. In a given
case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer,
depending upon his explanatian. For example take the first
charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain
false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to
certain ineligible persons. The respondent’s case was that
those notings were based upon certain documents produced and
certain records maintained by other employees in the office.
In such a situation it is for the respondent to establish
his case. The department is not expected to examine those
other employees in the office to show that their acts or
records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings
made by the respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline
to interfere in the matter under Article 136 of the
Constitution except to clarify the position of law. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed with no costs.