Airports Authority of India Vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that in disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is not required to be recorded detailed reasons in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
Facts- The respondent, while working with the appellant-Authority as an Assistant Engineer (Civil), was arrested along with a co-employee, who was working as a Junior Engineer in the appellant-Authority, for the offences punishable u/s. 7, 13(2) r.w.s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the representative of a contractor. Thereafter, both of them were suspended and a CBI Case was registered against them. Special Judge, CBI Court found the respondent guilty for the above-mentioned offences. On the contrary, the co-accused(Junior Engineer) was acquitted by the CBI Court. Aggrieved by his conviction, the respondent preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court.
While the criminal appeal was pending before the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority dispensed with the enquiry and ordered dismissal of the respondent from service relying on the CBI Court’s order. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected. Thereupon, the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court. High Court directed that if the respondent is acquitted in the pending criminal appeal, then it would be open for him to make an appropriate representation before the appellant-Authority to reconsider the dismissal order.
