Findings in Departmental Inquiry Must Be Based on Legal Proof, Not Conjectures or Unproven Documents

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was on patrolling duty on April 6, 2018, when his police vehicle met with an accident resulting in a woman's death

Following the accident, local residents allegedly recovered liquor from the vehicle, leading to a departmental proceeding against the petitioner

An enquiry report dated December 3, 2020, found him guilty based on the fact that an accident occurred and referencing a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report from a parallel criminal investigation

The petitioner was dismissed from service on December 10, 2020, by the DIG, Saran Range, and his subsequent appeal was rejected on May 19, 2021

The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that the enquiry was based on "no evidence"

1. Whether the departmental enquiry finding the petitioner guilty was based on legal evidence or mere conjectures

2. Whether the dismissal order and subsequent appellate order are sustainable in the absence of oral or documentary evidence proving the charges

departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, requiring the Enquiry Officer to base findings on material evidence brought on record, not just investigation reports from criminal cases

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570: documents must be proved by witnesses and that a person cannot be found guilty based on suspicion or unproven documents

Devendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar (LPA no. 1302 of 2017): however high the degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute for legal proof

The court observed that the departmental enquiry was a "case of no evidence"

while two witnesses were examined, they merely identified the signatures of the Superintendent of Police and the SDPO on two memos but did not testify regarding the substance of the charges (e.g., consumption of liquor or negligence)

The Enquiry Officer relied on the FSL report and the FIR from the criminal case without the prosecution leading evidence to prove those documents or the contents thereof within the departmental proceeding

The court held that the Enquiry Officer failed to perform the quasi-judicial function of connecting the law to the facts through proven evidence, rendering the report's conclusions unsustainable

The court allowed the writ application and quashed the dismissal order dated December 10, 2020, and the appellate order dated May 19, 2021; However, the court granted the respondents liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of the commencement of the enquiry