Karnataka Lokayukta
Karnataka Lokayukta

Degree of proof/applicability of Evidence Act in disciplinary proceedings/effect of acquittal and honourable acquittal:-

  1. (2019) 7 SCC 797 – (Shashibhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others) (3 Judge Bench) :

  2. (1997) 2 SCC 699 – (APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Usuf Miya (3 Judge Bench)),

  3. (2005) 7 SCC 764 -(Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (3 Judge Bench))
        Degree of Proof required in a Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings – The applicability of strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act is excluded in a disciplinary proceedings – The evidence required in the Departmental Enquiry is not regulated by Evidence Act – Burden of Proof. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. The Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Aejaz Hussain Vs. State of Karnataka and others – WP No. 203239/2019 (GM-KLA) dated 29-05-2020 has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (S) 1215/21 in the case of the Upalokayukta and others Vs. Aejaz Hussain and others on 05-02-2021.

  4. (2013) 1 SCC 598 – Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram: Even in case of honourable acquittal it will not enure to the benefit of the DGO unless the State rules provides for it.