Madras HC Upholds Fire Officer’s Dismissal, Finds Bribe-Trap Testimony Sufficient

The petitioner, a District Officer in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services Department, was remanded to judicial custody on 8 November 2019 in a corruption case arising from a trap proceeding and was subsequently suspended.

After the Supreme Court directed the respondents to complete disciplinary proceedings within four months, a charge memorandum was issued on 7 March 2022.

Following an enquiry, the State dismissed him from service by G.O.Ms.No.404 dated 31 July 2023.

He challenged that order under Article 226, alleging, among other things, denial of procedural fairness, lack of evidence, and an improper enquiry

Where an authority relies on UPSC advice as material against a delinquent employee, the advice should be supplied before the final order; the requirement does not invalidate an order where the advice was not mandatory, was obtained only after the disciplinary authority had reached its decision, and its non-supply caused no prejudice (*Union of India v. R.P. Singh*, applying *Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar*)

An Enquiry Officer must remain an impartial adjudicator and must not act as prosecutor, but non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not by itself vitiate an enquiry; the question turns on how the evidence was elicited and recorded (*State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha*; *Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma*)

Disciplinary findings are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, subject to the requirement of a proper evidentiary basis; *Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar*, concerning vague charges and hearsay evidence, was distinguished on its facts

In judicial review, a merely possible alternative view does not establish perversity or justify interference

The Court found that the applicable rules did not require the disciplinary authority to obtain TNPSC advice and that the authority had already decided to dismiss the petitioner before seeking the Commission’s advisory opinion; its non-supply therefore caused no demonstrated prejudice

Although no Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer’s questions were found to elicit information rather than lead witnesses through the prosecution case, and the petitioner had not raised a timely objection

The Investigating Officer’s presence and the initial examination of some witnesses in the petitioner’s absence likewise did not establish prejudice: the petitioner was represented by counsel, the witnesses were re-examined in his presence, and he cross-examined them

The Court considered the complainant and trap witnesses’ evidence sufficient to support the findings, distinguishing *Gyan Chand Chattar* because that case involved vague charges and hearsay evidence.

It also rejected the complaint about video footage because it was held by the police, not relied upon by the management, and was not within the management’s custody or control

Finding no perversity, the Court declined to reassess the evidence or interfere with the penalty

It further held that dismissal was an appropriate punishment for the proved corruption charge.

The writ petition was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no costs were awarded