17 May 2024 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law  

A recent High Court judgment has shed light on the proper procedures for departmental enquiries against employees. The case involved a bus driver who was involved in a fatal accident.

The Case:

A bus driver met with a tragic accident while on duty, resulting in fatalities. The employer conducted a departmental enquiry, concluding the driver's negligence caused the accident. They imposed a penalty of stopping his next three salary increments. However, the driver challenged this penalty in the Labour Court.

Lower Court's Error:

The Labour Court ruled in favor of the driver, citing the lack of eyewitnesses and his acquittal in a separate criminal trial. The High Court, however, found fault with this reasoning.

Standards of Proof:

The High Court clarified the crucial distinction between the standards of proof in criminal trials and departmental enquiries. Criminal trials require a much higher standard, proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." In contrast, departmental enquiries use a "preponderance of probability" standard, meaning it's more likely than not that the employee acted negligently. The Labour Court mistakenly applied the stricter criminal trial standard.

Res Ipsa Loquitur:

The Court also considered the principle of "res ipsa loquitur," which translates to "the thing speaks for itself." The extensive damage, fatalities, and nature of the accident suggested the driver's negligence. This principle shifted the burden to the driver to explain how the accident occurred without his fault.

Irrelevant Considerations:

The High Court pointed out that the Labour Court focused on irrelevant factors – the lack of eyewitnesses and the criminal acquittal. These hold little weight in a departmental enquiry.

Court's Decision:

The High Court ultimately allowed the employer's appeal. They found the Labour Court made several errors, including:

• Failing to consider the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
• Applying the incorrect standard of proof.
• Placing undue weight on irrelevant factors.

The Outcome:

The High Court's decision sets aside the Labour Court's ruling and upholds the departmental enquiry's findings. The driver's penalty of having his next three increments stopped remains in place.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988    Indian Evidence Act, 1872