Supreme Court judgment focusing on the dismissal of an employee from the Airports Authority of India following allegations of corruption. The case traces a lengthy legal battle involving initial dismissal based on a CBI court conviction, subsequent acquittal by the High Court, and multiple rounds of departmental inquiries and appeals. Key points of contention include the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings versus criminal trials, the admissibility of evidence like confessions, and the scope of judicial review in intra-court appeals, particularly regarding factual findings and the concept of “honourable acquittal.” The Supreme Court ultimately assesses whether the High Court’s Division Bench appropriately interfered with the lower court’s decision affirming the employee’s dismissal.
(A) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service Law – Acquittal in criminal proceedings – The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of accepting illegal gratification during the course of discharge of his official duties – In view of the conviction and sentence awarded by the CBI Court vide judgment dated 10th December, 1999, the enquiry was dispensed with and the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 13th July, 2000 – Criminal appeal preferred by the respondent came to be accepted by the High Court, vide judgment dated 16th July, 2004, and the respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him the benefit of doubt – Thereafter, the respondent availed of the remedy given to him in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., to revive the challenge to the order of dismissal by filing a representation with the appellant- Authority – The Appellate Authority gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent and vide order dated 24th March, 2005, the order of dismissal dated 13th July, 2000 was set aside, however, the respondent was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 13th July, 2000 – Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, assailing the order dated 24th March, 2005, and seeking a direction to restrain the Authority from initiating fresh departmental proceedings and quash the memorandum of charge dated 7th September, 2005 issued against him – The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd February, 2007 – The appellant-Authority preferred a writ appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge which came to be allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 6th August, 2007 – The said judgment of the Division Bench has been affirmed by this Court with the dismissal of the special leave petition filed by the respondent – Hence, these findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation have attained finality inter se amongst the parties – Held that the Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, while allowing the writ appeal filed by respondent, virtually overturned these pertinent findings recorded in the judgment dated 6th August, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation, despite such judgment having attained finality – Hence, on this count alone, the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(Para 25 to 27)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service Law – Dismissal – Finding of the Division Bench that the non-examination of the complainant is fatal to the case of the appellant-Authority – Held that it is well settled principle of law that even in a criminal case pertaining to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the courts are empowered to record conviction, where the decoy turns hostile, and the prosecution case is based purely on the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer and the trap witnesses – Subject matter concerns a domestic enquiry, where the strict rules of evidence prohibiting admissibility of confessional statements recorded by the police officials do not apply – Likewise, non-examination of the decoy cannot be treated to be fatal in the domestic enquiry where other evidence indicts the delinquent officer – Even a confession of the delinquent employee recorded by the Trap Laying Officer during the criminal investigation can be relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority – Trap Laying officer was examined during the course of disciplinary proceedings as PW-2, and he supported the case of the appellant- Authority to the hilt – The evidence of PW-2 was substantially corroborated by the other departmental witnesses including PW-1, and PW-3 – Thus, the Division Bench clearly erred in holding that non-examination of the complainant was fatal to the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the appellant-Authority.
(Para 28 to 30)
(C) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service Law – Dismissal – Judicial review – Contention on behalf of the respondent-petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not consider his representation and acted without application of mind while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the respondent – Held that on a perusal of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, find that the representation submitted by the respondent has been duly adverted to and objectively considered by both the authorities and the same were found to be devoid of substance – It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer – All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities – This is precisely what was done by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority while dealing with the case of the respondent
(Para 31 to 33)
(D) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service Law – Dismissal – Judicial review – Intra-Court appeal – Held that Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law – Division Bench failed to record any such finding and rather, proceeded to delve into extensive re- appreciation of evidence to overturn the judgment of the learned Single Judge – Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent – Appellate Authority too has duly applied its mind to the facts available on record while affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent – These two orders have rightly been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent – The judgment dated 29th June, 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and unassailable – Division Bench, while exercising the intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
(Para 37 to 39)
Airports Authority Of India V. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 149: (DoJ 04-02-2025)
