The Supreme Court has recently clarified the standards of proof required in disciplinary proceedings involving public employees, stating that misconduct needs only to be shown on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. This landmark judgment was delivered on February 4 by a bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta.
The case in question revolved around Pradip Kumar Banerjee, a former assistant engineer with the Airports Authority of India (AAI), whose dismissal had been previously overturned by a 2012 judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had ruled in favor of Banerjee, who was acquitted in a related criminal case. However, the Supreme Court has now set aside the High Court’s decision, reinstating the dismissal and underscoring a significant distinction between the burdens of proof required in criminal cases versus disciplinary proceedings.
In their 28-page verdict, Justice Mehta wrote that the burden of proof in criminal trials is to establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a high threshold aimed at protecting the innocent. However, in disciplinary inquiries within public employment, the requirement is lower, needing only a “preponderance of probabilities.” This means that it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred, a standard that is significantly easier to meet.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the autonomy of public employers in maintaining discipline and integrity within their ranks. This ruling allows them to take necessary actions against employees based on the less stringent standard, even if those employees were acquitted of related criminal charges.
Banerjee’s case involved allegations of accepting illegal gratification from a contractor, leading to his initial dismissal in July 2000 following a conviction in a special court. Despite his acquittal on appeal, the disciplinary actions based on the same allegations were scrutinized independently of the criminal proceedings.
This judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials operate under different legal frameworks and standards, enabling employers to act swiftly and decisively to uphold standards of conduct and public trust in government institutions.
