A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. examines the contours of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings involving members of an armed force of the Union, particularly in cases alleging corruption, fabrication of official records, and intimidation of subordinates. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force, challenged his dismissal from service arising out of a departmental enquiry conducted under the CISF Rules, 1969. The enquiry followed recovery of unaccounted cash from a subordinate constable, which ultimately revealed a structured mechanism of illegal collection of bribes from contractors operating within the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited refinery premises.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal investigations and that failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation to file a criminal charge-sheet does not invalidate departmental action. The Court emphasised the settled distinction between the standard of proof in criminal trials and disciplinary enquiries, reiterating that preponderance of probabilities governs service jurisprudence.

The judgment also clarifies that enquiry officers may actively question witnesses without violating the principle of nemo judex in sua causa, particularly in light of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Importantly, the Court delineated the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226, 32, and 136 of the Constitution, cautioning constitutional courts against re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of punishment unless perversity, procedural illegality, or shocking disproportionality is demonstrated.

The ruling underscores the heightened standards of integrity applicable to paramilitary forces and validates dismissal as a proportionate penalty for corruption and abuse of authority.

Keywords:
Service Law; Disciplinary Proceedings; Judicial Review; Corruption; CISF Rules; Proportionality

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from disciplinary action taken against a Sub-Inspector of the Central Industrial Security Force who was entrusted with sensitive duties relating to detection of corruption within a public sector refinery installation. The appellant’s role in the Crime and Intelligence Wing of CISF at the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited unit placed him in a position of trust, responsibility, and authority. The incident dated 28 February 1999 exposed a pattern of misconduct involving illegal collection of money from contractors, falsification of official records, and intimidation of subordinates.

Simultaneous initiation of departmental enquiry and criminal investigation reflects a typical administrative response to allegations of corruption in disciplined forces. The departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969, leading to a detailed enquiry and eventual dismissal. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the disciplinary order before the departmental appellate authority and later before the Bombay High Court under Article 226.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether constitutional courts could reassess evidence, question factual conclusions, or interfere with punishment in service matters involving armed forces personnel. The judgment situates itself within a long line of precedents that stress restraint in judicial review, particularly where multiple fact-finding authorities have concurrently returned findings of guilt. The case also revisits the doctrine of proportionality and the independence of disciplinary proceedings from criminal trials.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant joined CISF in January 1995 and was posted at the BPCL refinery unit in Mumbai in March 1996. By July 1997, he was deployed in the Crime and Intelligence Wing and was specifically tasked with conducting surprise searches and curbing corruption. On 28 February 1999, a subordinate constable was found carrying ₹10,780, far exceeding permissible limits. The recovery was made during a surprise inspection, recorded in the General Diary at the North Gate.

Subsequently, a contradictory General Diary entry surfaced at the Main Gate showing a fictitious loan transaction, allegedly made at the appellant’s instance. Evidence revealed multiple phone calls made by the appellant to the duty officer to fabricate this entry. Further investigation disclosed coercion of another constable to falsely corroborate the loan theory.

Witness testimonies established that bribes were collected systematically from BPCL contractors at fixed rates for vehicles entering and exiting the refinery. The money recovered was intended to be delivered to the appellant. Though one witness later attempted retraction, the enquiry officer found overwhelming corroborative evidence.

The departmental enquiry concluded that the appellant orchestrated corruption, falsified records, and abused his authority. The disciplinary authority imposed dismissal under Rule 29(a) r/w Rule 31(a). The appellate authority affirmed the decision, and the High Court upheld it after detailed scrutiny.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether constitutional courts can re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226 and 136?
ii. Whether questioning by an enquiry officer violates the principle of nemo judex in sua causa?
iii. Whether absence of a criminal charge-sheet nullifies departmental punishment?
iv. Whether dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charges proved?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the enquiry was vitiated by bias, alleging that the enquiry officer acted as both prosecutor and judge by cross-examining witnesses. It was argued that key witnesses had retracted statements and that evidence was insufficient. Reliance was placed on the absence of a criminal charge-sheet by the CBI to contend that departmental punishment could not survive. The appellant also urged leniency, citing long remaining service tenure.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal investigations. They highlighted concurrent findings by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and High Court. It was contended that no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice occurred and that corruption in a paramilitary force warranted strict punishment.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that judicial review does not permit reassessment of evidence or substitution of conclusions reached by competent authorities. The Court upheld the enquiry process as fair, unbiased, and compliant with natural justice. It ruled that Section 165 of the Evidence Act empowers enquiry officers to question witnesses to elicit truth.

The Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings operate on preponderance of probabilities and remain unaffected by the outcome of criminal investigations. The punishment of dismissal was held proportionate, considering the gravity of corruption and the appellant’s position of trust.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio establishes that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate bodies in service matters and that dismissal for corruption in paramilitary forces satisfies proportionality standards. Departmental proceedings are independent of criminal trials.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that integrity expectations are heightened in armed forces and corruption erodes institutional credibility. Leniency in such cases undermines discipline.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Judicial review is confined to procedural legality and perversity.
ii. Enquiry officers may question witnesses to ascertain truth.
iii. Criminal acquittal or non-prosecution does not bar disciplinary action.
iv. Corruption in disciplined forces warrants deterrent punishment.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment consolidates service law principles governing judicial restraint, proportionality, and disciplinary autonomy. It reinforces institutional integrity within armed forces and clarifies procedural fairness benchmarks in domestic enquiries. The ruling serves as a precedent against dilution of accountability standards in public service.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. BC Chaturvedi v. Union of India [1995] 4 Suppl SCR 644
2. Union of India v. T.R. Varma [1958] SCR 499
3. Shashi Prasad v. CISF (2019) 7 SCC 797

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India
2. CISF Rules, 1969
3. Evidence Act, 1872
4. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988