ORISSA MINING CORPORATION AND ANR.versusANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY

               ORISSA MINING CORPORATION AND ANR.                               A
                                v.
                     ANANDA CHANDRA PRUSTY

                             NOVEMBER 5, 1996

           [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]                         B

         Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Burden ofProof-Depends
    upon nature of charges and explanation by the delinquent officer.

         Two charges framed against the respondent who was working
    as Assistant Accounts Officer with the appellant-corporation.               C
    Disciplinary inquiry was held.

         On the basis of inquiry report, the respondent was dismissed
    from service. Respondent challenged the said order in the High Court
    The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order.             D

-         In appeal to this Court it was contended that the question of
    burden of proof becomes irrelevant when both parties have adduced
    their evidence.

         Dismissing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of tbe case       E
    Ibis Court.

         HELD: 1. In a departmental or disciplinary inquiry the question
    of burden of proof depends upon the nature of charges and nature of
    explanation put forward by the delinquent officer. [43SDJ            F
          2.1. There is no such thing as absolute burden of proof always
    lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry. The burden of
    proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of
    charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent G
    officer depending upon his explanation. (435F[

          2.2. In the instant case one of the charges was that the respondent
    had made certam false noting on account of which loans were disbursed
    to certain ineligible persons. The respondents case was that those loans
    were based upon certain documents produced and certain records              H
                                      433
    434                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it
    was for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not
    expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that
    their acts or accounts could not have formed the basis of wrong noting
    made by the respondent. [435 F-HJ.

B        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14163 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.96 of the Orissa High
    Court in O.J.C. No. 2616 of 1995.

c         lnterjit Roy and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellants.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
D
          Heard the counsel for the parties.

         The respondent was an Assistant Accounts Officer in the service of
                                                                                -
  the appellant-corporation. Two charges were framed against him and a
E disciplinary inquiry held. The first charge was that the respondent made
  certain false notings while recommending sanction of loans to certain
  persons to the effect that no loan was outstanding against them. On the
  basis of such false notings, loans were sanctioned to them, contrary to the
  rules. The second charge was that he failed to exercise proper control and
  supervision on the staff on account of which the relevant registers and
F record were not kept upto date. The inquiry officer reported that while
  charge No. I is established, charge No.2 is proved only partially. On the
  basis of the said report the respondent was dismissed from service, which
  he challenged by way of writ petition in the Orissa High Court. The High
  Court has allowed the writ petition holding: (a) the burden of proving the
G first charge rested with the department. The inquiry officer, however, has
  wrongly cast the burden of disproving the charge upon the respondent.
  The department must succeed on the strength of its   own  evidence and not
  on the basis of weakness or the failure of the delinquent officer to prove
  his innocence. Since the inquiry officer has proceeded on a wrong
  hypothesis not permissible in law, the finding recorded by him on charge
H No.I is liable to be quashed. (b) No rules have been cited which show
      ORJSSA MINING CORPN. v. A.C. PRU STY [B.P. JEE VAN REDDY, J .] 435


which officer is required to maintain which register nor is there any oral        A
evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. In the case of this charge
too, the burclen has been wrongly cast upon the respondent to prove his
innocence. Accordingly the High Court quashed the order of punishment
impugned in the writ petition.

      Learned counsel for the appellant-corporation submitted that the            B
question of burden of proof becomes irrelevant when both parties have
adduced their evidence. Learned counsel also complained that the
High Court seem to suggest that the standard of proof required in
disciplinary matters is similar to the one obtaining in criminal cases. Counsel
submitted that while saying that it is not reappreciating the evidence, the
High Court has precisely done that. On the other hand the learned counsel         C
for the respondent supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High
Court.

      In a disciplinary or a departmental inquiry, the question of burden
of prnof depends upon the nature of charges and the nature of explanation         D
put forward by the delinquent officer. In this sense, the learned counsel
for the appellant may be justified in complaining that the standard of
proof stipulated by the High Court in this case sounds inappropriate to a
disciplinary inquiry. At the same time we must say that certain observations
made by the inquiry officer in his report do lend themselves to the criticism
offered by the High Court.                                                        E

       On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in
the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by
us herein above viz., that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of
proof, always lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry. The            F
burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of
charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer,
depending upon his explanation. For example take the first charge in this
case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of
which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondent's        G
case was that those nothings were based upon certain documents produced
and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a
situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is
not expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that
their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings
made by the respondent.                                                           H
    436                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A         In the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline to interfere in
    the matter under Article 136 ofthe Constitution exceptto clarify the position
    of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no costs.

    P.T.                                                     Appeal dismissed.