Acquittal in Criminal Trial Due to Hostile Witnesses Does Not Nullify Disciplinary Findings Based on Preponderance of Probabilities

The Petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

The charges originated from an incident on 04.02.2018, where the Petitioner, while on sanctioned leave, allegedly consumed liquor in a public place with friends, leading to a scuffle during which one Ganesh Balu Pisal died.

Concurrently, the Petitioner faced a criminal trial under Section 302/34 of the IPC, which resulted in his acquittal on 24.09.2019 because the witnesses turned hostile.

Despite the acquittal, the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Reviewing Authorities upheld the dismissal, leading the Petitioner to challenge these orders via the present Writ Petition.

1. Whether the findings of the departmental inquiry are sustainable given the subsequent acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal trial for the same set of facts.

2. Whether the non-examination of certain witnesses and the absence of a medical report regarding alcohol consumption vitiated the inquiry proceedings.

3. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

The court applied the principle that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process and not the correctness of the decision itself, as established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.

It emphasized that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is the "preponderance of probabilities," whereas criminal trials require "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Relying on Deputy Inspector General v. S. Samuthiram and State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, the court held that a "technical acquittal" due to witnesses turning hostile is not an "honourable acquittal" and does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement.

The court reasoned that since the acquittal was based on witnesses turning hostile rather than a finding of innocence, it did not diminish the departmental findings.

The authorities relied on the Petitioner’s own signed statement dated 14.02.2018, where he admitted to consuming liquor and participating in the scuffle that led to the death, which satisfied the threshold of preponderance of probabilities.

The court found that the Petitioner’s subsequent denial was unsupported by evidence of coercion.

As a member of a "disciplined force," the Petitioner was held to a higher standard of conduct; his involvement in a public scuffle resulting in death was deemed a grave misconduct that tarnished the reputation of the force.

The absence of a medical report was not fatal because witness statements and the Petitioner's own admission corroborated the alcohol consumption.

The acquittal in the criminal case had no bearing on the disciplinary outcome as it was not an "honourable acquittal".

The court further held that the penalty of dismissal was not "shockingly disproportionate" given the gravity of the incident and the institutional requirements of a disciplined force like the CISF.

All pending applications were dismissed.