NDLI: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Dismissal from service disciplinary enquiry judicial review over disciplinary matters Service Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law – Dismissal from service after a disciplinaryenquiry – The respondent was appointed as a constable in the Statepolice service – It was alleged that the respondent overstayed leaveby a period of 3 days beyond the leave sanctioned – Few daysthereafter, he was arrested for the offence of murder u/s.302 IPC –It was alleged that there was a dispute over land between therespondent and victim-deceased – Also, the respondent’s father wasbitten by snake and he was treated by the victim using witchcraft,which did not yield result, leading to the death of respondent’s father– According to the prosecution, the respondent bore a grudge towardsthe victim due to this incident and had proclaimed to kill him –Victim’s death was caused by an accident with an unknown vehicle– The Trial Court found that the deceased had intimated at the policestation a threat to his life from the respondent few years before theincident – A succession of prosecution witnesses were declared hostile(PWs 3, 4, 5,17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 34) and the Court found itunsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 based on inconsistenciesin his evidence – The respondent was given the benefit of doubtand was acquitted – However, in disciplinary proceedings underthe Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules 1958, the enquiry officer found charges of misconduct provedthat the respondent as a member of the police force had committedan act of murder while on leave – Consequently, he was dismissedfrom service – The appeal and review filed by the respondent weredismissed – The writ petition filed by the respondent was also rejectedby the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the DivisionBench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the Single Judgeand directed reinstatement of the respondent in service withconsequential benefits but without back-wages – On appeal, held:The standard of proof in disciplinary proceeding is different fromthat of criminal trial – While the standard of proof in criminal caseis a proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmentalproceeding is a preponderance of probabilities – In the instant case,the respondent and his parked tractor were seen proximate in timeand in terms of the location where victim’s dead body was found byboth PW1 and PW3 – The respondent was found to be together withone of the co-accused proximate in time – These circumstances arecoupled with respondent’s movements at and around the time of themurder, commencing with but not confined to his being at the villageon leave for 2 days coinciding with the murder – This may not besufficient to sustain a conviction on a charge of murder in the sessiontrial – But, the State had sufficient material to conclude that theconnection of respondent to the incident would affect the reputationof its police force – The reinstatement of such an employee back inservice will erode the credibility of and public confidence in theimage of the police force – Therefore, the direction of the DivisionBench for reinstatement set aside.In judicial review over disciplinary matters – Held: Two endsof spectrum - First is a rule of restraint founded on deference to theposition of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authorityand autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline andefficiency of the service – At the other end of the spectrum is theprinciple that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when thefindings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when theysuffer from perversity – A failure to consider vital evidence is anincident of what the law regards as a perverse determination offact – Service jurisprudence has recognized the authority of thecourt to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionateto the weight of the evidence or misconduct.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 621
Petitioner	The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Respondent	Heem Singh
SCR	[2020] 13 S.C.R. 951
Judgement Date	2020-10-29
Case Number	3340

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr.

Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Anr Vs. Umesh

Abhay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh

Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Charanjit Singh

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Risal Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr.

Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

The State of Karnataka & Anr Vs. Umesh

Abhay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh

Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Charanjit Singh

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh