Disciplinary Action Based on Extraneous Material and Perverse Findings Devoid of Independent Evidence Sustains Quashment

The petitioner, appointed as "Bal Aarakshi" (Constable) on compassionate grounds in 1998, was dismissed from service on March 4, 2011, following a departmental inquiry.

The dismissal was based on his arrest in Sakchi P.S. Case No. 107 of 2010 for alleged extortion under Sections 387 and 120-B of the IPC.

The petitioner maintained he was visiting the institute for his brother's admission and had no knowledge of any extortion.

During the inquiry, the complainant/victim admitted that the petitioner never demanded money and did not appear to have come for extortion.

Despite this, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved based on a police "supervision note".

The petitioner’s appeals and review petitions were rejected.

Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges in the criminal case on February 2, 2016.

1. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the subsequent dismissal order were based on evidence or were perverse in nature.

2. Whether an order of dismissal can be sustained when it relies on extraneous materials like a police supervision note rather than independent evidence.

The court applied the principles of administrative law regarding "no evidence" and "perversity" in departmental proceedings.

Findings in a disciplinary inquiry must be based on some legal evidence and cannot rely on extraneous materials such as a police "supervision note," which lacks evidentiary value.

The court also considered the impact of a "clean acquittal" in a criminal case when the departmental proceeding is based on the same set of facts.

The court found that the inquiry was a case of "no evidence" because the primary witness (the victim) explicitly testified that the petitioner never demanded money or behaved like an extortionist.

The Inquiry Officer ignored this direct testimony and instead relied solely on a "supervision note" from a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The court reasoned that a supervision note is an extraneous material that cannot be treated as evidence in a departmental proceeding where evidence must be assessed independently.

The disciplinary authorities failed to apply their minds to the record, being "swayed" by the allegations in the FIR rather than the actual testimony recorded during the inquiry.

The subsequent clean acquittal in the criminal court further reinforced the lack of merit in the charges.

The High Court quashed the dismissal order (04.03.2011), the appellate order (21.02.2013), and the review order (19.11.2015).

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and grant all consequential benefits, including back-wages, within twelve weeks.

The writ petition was allowed.