Delhi High Court
Disciplinary Proceedings - Show Cause Notice proposing Punishment of removal from service - Quashing thereof sought - Notice challenged on the ground of lack of original jurisdiction in prescribing punishment, inadequate evidence - Tribunal held that there was no cogent evidence sufficient to hold the aggrieved party guilty - Challenge against findings of Tribunal as to whether to be interfered with and whether statement of Complainant sufficient and good enough to determine the guilt of other party
Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sri Chand (Decided on 22.03.2010)
No cogent evidence from which it can be inferred that alleged incident had taken place. Mere statement of the Complainant without any other evidence cannot be sufficient to hold that there is evidence against the other party, and in the circumstances, the inferences of the Tribunal that the charges alleged are based on no evidence, cannot be faulted. It is true that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charge. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the evidence and documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. The enquiry officer's finding was based merely on the suspicion which could not be allowed and the Tribunal was justified in not upholding such an inference which was not based on preponderance of probability but was based and mere surmise and conjectures. Instant case such where the punishment of removal from service was awarded merely on assumption and surmises and conjectures ignoring not only the prosecution witnesses but even the other witnesses. Petition dismissed.