Dismissal for proven police corruption stands where disciplinary findings are supported by evidence.

The petitioner, a Grade-I Police Constable, was charged with intercepting a vehicle carrying banned tobacco products and negotiating for and receiving a bribe of ₹2 lakhs instead of reporting the offence.

Following a disciplinary enquiry in which the Department relied on 14 witnesses and 17 documents, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 29 December 2023; the appellate and reviewing authorities affirmed that decision.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal and consequential order under Article 226, disputing the evidence and arguing that dismissal was disproportionate.

1. Whether the disciplinary findings that the petitioner engaged in corrupt conduct were unsupported by evidence or otherwise liable to be disturbed in judicial review

2. Whether dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct

Under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 61; and The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478, judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not an appeal: the court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its own findings where some evidence supports the disciplinary conclusion.

Interference may be warranted where findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence, procedural fairness is lacking, or the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.

The applicable standard for departmental findings is the preponderance of probabilities.

The Court considered the cross-examination admissions by PW.1 and PW.2 that they had not seen the petitioner at the scene, but found that these admissions did not make the disciplinary finding impossible.

Their chief-examination implicated the petitioner; PW.3 and PW.4 testified that they met him near the hotel after he asked them to come and that he sought their involvement in negotiating with the vehicle’s owner, and this evidence was unchallenged.

The Court also noted the recovery of ₹2 lakhs from PW.2 and the petitioner’s failure to deny seeing the vehicle or speaking with the witnesses.

Taken together, the evidence provided a sufficient basis for the finding under the departmental standard of proof.

Given that the charge involved corrupt conduct by a police officer, the Court held that dismissal was proportionate.

The writ petition was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were ordered.