Departmental dismissal for unauthorized investigative interference remains valid notwithstanding discharge in parallel criminal proceedings.

The applicant, a 1999-batch direct recruit Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was serving as Superintendent of Police (SP) when he was served a charge memorandum on 24.06.2015.

The primary allegation was that he entered into an "unholy alliance" with other accused persons to dishonestly use his official position to influence the Station House Officer (SHO) of Amar Colony Police Station to settle a criminal case (FIR No. 129/2013) against one Dinesh Gupta in exchange for money.

While the Inquiry Officer (IO) concluded the charges were "not proved" in a report dated 31.01.2020, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued a disagreement note on 04.03.2021, holding specific allegations regarding undue influence as "proved".

Following UPSC advice, the applicant was dismissed from service on 11.01.2023.

Parallelly, in the criminal proceedings, the CBI Special Court discharged the applicant on 16.12.2017 at the stage of framing charges due to insufficient material.

The applicant challenged the dismissal, arguing that his discharge in the criminal case should invalidate the departmental findings.

1. Whether the discharge of the applicant by the criminal court at the threshold stage of framing charges entitles him to the setting aside of the dismissal order passed in departmental proceedings.

2. Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, based on the preponderance of probability regarding the applicant’s telephonic interventions with a junior police officer, are sustainable under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

3. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandates that a government servant must maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

The principle from Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) and G.M. Tank v. Government of Gujarat (2006), which posits that departmental findings may be unsustainable if they contradict an "honourable acquittal" on identical charges and evidence.

The "preponderance of probability" standard for disciplinary matters and the limited scope of judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), which restricts tribunals from re-appreciating evidence unless findings are perverse.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the applicant. It noted that the applicant was merely "discharged" at the threshold for lack of sufficient material to frame charges, rather than being "honourably acquitted" after a full trial on merits.

Crucially, the discharge order was under challenge before the Delhi High Court.

On the facts, the Tribunal observed that the applicant admitted to making telephonic calls to the SHO regarding a case outside his jurisdiction involving a person he claimed not to know.

The SHO's statement revealed that the applicant had suggested the matter was "going to higher ups" in the CBI and that the SHO should "sort out the matter" to avoid "personal problems".

The Tribunal agreed with the UPSC and DA that such conduct by a senior CBI officer constitutes an attempt to exercise undue influence and indicates an "undesirable nexus" with accused persons.

The Tribunal held that since the misconduct related to the applicant's integrity and unauthorized intervention in investigations, the departmental findings were independent of the criminal discharge.

The Tribunal found the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate given the high standard of conduct expected from CBI officers. The Original Application was dismissed, and the order of dismissal from service was upheld.