TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -258
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
1012. Suspicion cannot take the place of Proof or Evidence
There are a number of cases in which the Supreme Court has emphatically held that the finding of guilt can be recorded on the basis of specific evidence only and the suspicion, howsoever strong, can never take the place of evidence or proof. Thus, in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364, the Court observed :
“Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the Government to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries.”
In State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827, the Supreme Court again observed:
“It may be that in disciplinary proceedings taken against public servants, the technicalities of criminal law cannot be invoked, and the strict mode of proof prescribed by the Evidence Act may not be applied with equal rigour; but even in disciplinary proceedings, the charge framed against the public servant must be held to be proved before any punishment can be imposed on him.”
And, again in Nand Kishore v. State of Bihar, AIR 1978 SC 1277,
“(The) disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi judicial character, therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence i.e., evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of delinquent in respect of charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in departmental inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary inquiries held under the statutory rules.”
1013. Likewise, conjectures or surmises are no substitute for proof
In judicial as well as quasi-judicial proceedings, there is a requirement of proof. It may be established directly on the basis of the evidence adduced during the proceedings or by drawing reasonable inferences from other facts established by evidence. The process must not be vitiated by surmises or conjectures [Devendrabhai v. R.V. Sheth, 1992 AIR SCW 1454). The Hon'ble Court observed on pp.1464-65 - “There is no manner of doubt that in any proceedings, judicial or quasi-judicial there is requirement of proof and such requirement cannot be substituted by surmise and conjecture.”
1014. Standard Proof in Departmental Inquiries
A fact can be said to be established only if it is proved by the legal standard proof applicable to the proceedings in which it is a matter of dispute. In Criminal proceedings, the standard proof is ‘Beyond reasonable doubt', while in the Civil proceedings the facts are required to be proved by ‘Pre-ponderance of probabilities'. As regards the disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court has held - "A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt” (Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972)2 SCR 218]. In R.K. Tewari v. Union of India, 1983 Lab. IC 1168, the Delhi High Court observed that the standard proof of preponderance of probability in departmental inquiries is because of the nature of proceedings, and will not become different with nature of the charges. Thus, the standard proof will not be different even if the charges imply extortion, temporary misappropriation, illegal retention of money etc.
However, the question of weighing probables will arise only after the basic facts are proved. A reasonable inference must be drawn from proved facts alone. If this is not done, the conclusion reached shall be vitiated because it is not based on proved facts but on suspicion and conjecture. On the other hand, "a finding cannot be categorised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from proved facts" (Sardar Bahadur case). If the basic facts are themselves not proved, the case shall be of 'no evidence and hence, no punishment can be imposed (Union of India x: H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364].
Post a Comment