Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 8782 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21197 of 2019)

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

PHULPARI KUMARI                                               …. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The  State  of  Bihar  has  filed  the  above  Appeal

questioning the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at

Patna by which the order  of  dismissal  of  the Respondent

dated 10.12.2014 was set aside.    

2. The  Respondent  was  appointed  as  a  Child

Development Officer on 29.06.2011.  Sh. Jitendra Rajak filed

a complaint against the Respondent to the Vigilance Bureau

of  Investigation,  Patna  alleging  demand  of  illegal

gratification.    The Vigilance Bureau conducted a raid and

the Respondent was caught red-handed while accepting an

1

amount of Rs.40,000/-.  A First Information Report (FIR) was

registered  against  the  Respondent  on  17.08.2013.

Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were commenced

against the Respondent on 12.11.2013 and she was placed

under  suspension.   An  inquiry  was  held  in  which  the

following charges were framed:

First Charge:

“You  demanded  the  gratification  amount

for  the  selection/appointment  letter  to  the

selected  candidate  after  the  selection  of  the

general  meeting  on  the  vacant  post  of

Anganwari  Sevika  in  Anganwari  Centre  No.

27 (Ward No.03 Panchayat Mahuli) of the Child

Development Project, Patna Rural Patna.”  

Second Charge:

Irregular  operation  of  Anganwari  Centers

and the Centre found to be closed.   

The  Agnagnwari  Centre  was  found  to  be

closed in the preschool education at Anganwari

Centre No. 63 of the Child Development Project,

Patna  Sadar  –  1  on  13.10.2011.  Anganwari

2 | P a g e

Centre  was  running  in  the  house  made  of

straws.  Sevika came late.  Sevika told that she

had taken leave on that day from the woman

Supervisor,  which  information  came  to  be

wrong.   The  Helper  was  found  to  be  absent.

Kitchen  was  found  to  be  closed  since

02.10.2011.  Maternity beneficiary informed that

she gets 04 kg rice and 01 kg pulse on THR day.

The  operation  of  the  Centre  was  found  to  be

unsatisfactory.   

Third Charge

As mentioned in  the supplementary form

attached  to  the  Resolution  No.1218  dated

04.03.2014 about registering FIR by vigilance PS

case No.49//.     

 3. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are that a general

meeting  was  convened  on  24.06.2013  to  decide  the

vacancies  for  the  position  of  Child  Development  Officer

(Sevika) in Anganwari Centre No.27 (Ward No.03 Panchayat

Mahuli)  of  the  Child  Development  Project,  Patna.   A

resolution was passed to select Smt. Suman Kumar, the wife

3 | P a g e

of the complainant.  The Respondent was also present in the

general  meeting.   Smt.  Suman  obtained  62.4  per  cent

marks.  As per the complaint, the Respondent demanded a

sum  of  Rs.1,50,000/-  for  the  appointment  of  the

complainant’s wife, Smt. Suman Kumar.  The amount was

then reduced to Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant approached

the  Vigilance  Bureau  and  a  raid  was  conducted  on

17.08.2013 by laying a trap.  As per the directions of the

Vigilance  authorities,  the  complainant  approached  the

Respondent who was standing in the verandah of her house.

The Respondent received the money and put the amount on

the chair and began to shut the grill of her house, when she

saw other persons of the raiding party.   The fingers of both

the  hands  of  the  Respondent  were  washed  in  sodium

carbonate solution and the color of the solution turned pink.

The  Inquiry  Officer  concluded  that  there  is  sufficient

evidence to hold that the Respondent is guilty of the first

charge framed against her.  The charge of demanding and

accepting illegal gratification was proved against her.  The

other charges were also needed to be proved.   

4 | P a g e

4. The  Respondent  was  dismissed  from  service  by  an

order  dated  10.12.2014.    She  challenged  the  order  of

dismissal by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which

was allowed by a judgment dated 12.12.2017.   A learned

Single Judge of the High Court disbelieved the version of the

complainant as neither the complainant nor his wife were

examined  in  the  disciplinary  proceedings.   The  learned

Single  Judge  concluded  that  the  charge  of  demand  and

acceptance  of  the  illegal  gratification  by  the  Respondent

was not proved.   

5. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  affirmed  the

judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and

dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant.  The Division

Bench proceeded to examine the evidence and held that the

charge  of  demand  and  acceptance  of  illegal  gratification

was not proved.  The submission of the Respondent that she

was falsely implicated in a trap case was accepted by the

Division Bench.   

6. The  criminal  trial  against  the  Respondent  is  still

pending consideration by a competent criminal Court.  The

5 | P a g e

order  of  dismissal  from  service  of  the  Respondent  was

pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against her.   The

Inquiry Officer examined the evidence and concluded that

the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

by the Respondent was proved.  The learned Single Judge

and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error

in reappreciating the evidence and coming to a conclusion

that the evidence on record was not sufficient to point to the

guilt of the Respondent.   It is settled law that interference

with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry

can be only in case of ‘no evidence’.  Sufficiency of evidence

is not within the realm of judicial review.   The standard of

proof  as required in a criminal  trial  is  not the same in a

departmental  inquiry.    Strict  rules of  evidence are to be

followed  by  the  criminal  Court  where  the  guilt  of  the

accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.   On

the other hand, preponderance of probabilities is the test

adopted in finding the delinquent guilty of the charge.  The

High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of

dismissal of the Respondent by re-examining the evidence

and  taking  a  view  different  from  that  of  the  disciplinary

6 | P a g e

authority  which  was based on the findings of  the  Inquiry

Officer.   

7. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is

set aside and the order of dismissal of the Respondent is

upheld.  The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

                      ..…................................J                                                            [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                              ..….............................J                                                        [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, December 06, 2019.

7 | P a g e