Hearsay Evidence and Unsubstantiated Findings Cannot Sustain Dismissal in Departmental Proceedings

The petitioner, an Inspector (Armed Battalion) in the Assam Police, was deployed as the Overall In-Charge of a recruitment venue for the 2018 Constable recruitment.

During the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), his son participated as a candidate. Anomalies were later detected in the results; while CCTV footage showed the son completed 9 laps in 14:49 minutes, the result sheet recorded 10 laps in 13:56 minutes.

A criminal case (Karimganj P.S. Case No. 962/2021) was registered, and the petitioner was arrested.

Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated charging the petitioner with exerting "undue influence" over software engineer Azam Khatib (PW-13) to manipulate the results.

Despite PW-13 denying any such influence or acquaintance with the petitioner during the regular enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority relied on hearsay evidence and preliminary investigation reports to dismiss the petitioner from service on 17.01.2024.

1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on admissible evidence and supported the charge of misconduct against the petitioner.

2. Whether the standard of proof (preponderance of probability) was met given the contradictory testimony of the key witness.

3. Whether the penalty of dismissal was sustainable in law.

While the standard of proof in departmental enquiries is the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt," findings must still be based on admissible evidence and not hearsay.

The court relied on precedents such as Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484 and Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 73 to evaluate the fairness of the procedure and parity in punishment.

A criminal arrest or preliminary investigation materials do not constitute conclusive evidence of guilt in a domestic tribunal.

The court found that the Enquiry Officer’s conclusions were fundamentally flawed because they relied on "hearsay evidence" from other witnesses regarding what PW-13 allegedly said during a preliminary investigation.

During the regular enquiry, PW-13 (the engineer) categorically denied being influenced by the petitioner and stated that errors could be technical; the Presenting Officer failed to confront PW-13 with his previous statements or the Forensic Lab report, rendering his testimony in the enquiry undisputed.

The CCTV footage—the primary evidence for the alleged manipulation—was never exhibited or provided to the petitioner.

The mere fact of an arrest or a prima facie case in a criminal investigation cannot replace the requirement for proof in a departmental proceeding; since the essential link (connivance/undue influence) was not proven by any direct or circumstantial evidence, the findings were deemed perverse.

The court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the dismissal order dated 17.01.2024, directed immediate reinstatement, and granted full back-wages to be paid within three months.