Confession to Police Alone Can't Prove Misconduct – Departmental Proceedings Must Stand on Independent Evidence: Allahabad High Court Quashes SBI Employee’s Dismissal

“Statements made under Section 161 CrPC during police investigation, without independent corroboration, cannot sustain a finding of guilt even under preponderance of probability” –  In a landmark judgment that reaffirms procedural safeguards in service jurisprudence, the Allahabad High Court quashed the dismissal of a State Bank of India (SBI) employee accused of fraud, holding that confessional statements made during police investigation—without any independent evidence—cannot form the sole basis for disciplinary punishment.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, sitting in Civil Original Jurisdiction in Writ-A No. 26097 of 2018, Jag Pal Singh v. Union of India & Ors., held that the entire disciplinary case rested on the petitioner’s alleged police confession and one prosecution witness referencing that confession—which, in the absence of corroborative material, fails even the civil standard of “preponderance of probability”.

“Preponderance of probability does not mean that entire proceedings can rest on probabilities alone… there must be some independent material to support the charge. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence beyond the alleged confessional statement.” [Para 31, 34]

The Court set aside the dismissal, granted continuity of service, and awarded 25% back wages, while leaving it open for the Bank to initiate fresh proceedings or await the outcome of the pending criminal trial.

“Confessional Statement Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis for Disciplinary Punishment”

The petitioner, Jag Pal Singh, a Cashier with SBI's Gonda Branch, was dismissed from service in 2018 for alleged involvement in the fraudulent withdrawal of ₹55.20 lakhs from a customer’s account. The disciplinary charges were anchored solely on:

• An alleged confession to the police (recorded under Section 161 CrPC);

• The testimony of a branch manager (PW-1) who claimed the petitioner admitted guilt during police questioning.

The Court, however, found no independent evidence—no cross-examination, no verification of documents, no opportunity to rebut the charges beyond the criminal record.

Justice Shamshery underscored: “The statement made before police authorities cannot be made the sole ground to punish the petitioner in departmental proceedings.” [Para 29]

“Once there is no evidence that the petitioner was involved directly or indirectly in the crime or fraud, he could not be made solely responsible for the act.” [Para 30]

This finding aligns with the Supreme Court’s ratio in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, where it was held:

“The purported confession made before the police… should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in misconduct.”

“Departmental Inquiry Based Only on Confession Is Legally Unsustainable”

Despite earlier directions from a coordinate Bench of the High Court in 2018 to reconsider the petitioner’s objections, evaluate the Inquiry Officer’s findings, and comply with Clause 12(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement, the Disciplinary Authority once again imposed dismissal without notice in 2018.

The Court scrutinised the second dismissal order and found the same foundational infirmity—the entire inquiry was anchored in the police case diary and the petitioner’s alleged statement therein, without any fresh or independent material.

“It appears that the departmental proceedings were proceeded only on basis of statements recorded during investigation... such nature of evidence fails when tested on the anvil of ‘preponderance of probability’.” [Para 33]

Justice Shamshery went further to clarify the evidentiary standard in disciplinary proceedings: “Preponderance of probability does not mean proceeding purely on assumptions… There must be existence of a fact being more probable than its non-existence.” [Para 31]

The Court relied on United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, (2022) 13 SCC 329 and Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, to hold that departmental inquiries must be supported by material evidence, and mere reliance on a confession recorded under police authority does not satisfy this burden.

“Violation of Equality and Proportionality – Other Officials Escaped with Minor or No Punishment”

The Court also accepted the petitioner’s plea that the principle of proportionality was grossly violated. Several other officials allegedly involved in the same fraud were not punished at all or awarded minor penalties, while the petitioner alone was dismissed from service.

This selective approach, the Court held, violated Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of fairness: “Imposition of harsh penalty of dismissal without cogent proof or uniformity in treatment is arbitrary and disproportionate – violates principles of equality and fairness.” [Headnote]

“Natural Justice Requires Real Consideration – Not Ritual Compliance”

In the first round of litigation, the Court had directed the Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the matter by considering the petitioner’s objections dated 01.12.2015, and assessing whether the Inquiry Officer’s findings were based on evidence.

Although the Authority claimed to comply, the High Court held that this exercise was mere formality, and the second punishment order did not cure the procedural defects highlighted earlier.

“The earlier direction of the High Court requiring detailed consideration of objections and findings of the inquiry report was not complied with in spirit… the punishment order continues to suffer from procedural infirmity.” [Para 26–28]

Dismissal Quashed, Continuity of Service Restored with 25% Back Wages

In view of the findings, the High Court quashed the punishment order dated 20.06.2018 and the undated appellate rejection, holding that they were legally unsustainable due to the absence of independent evidence.

Justice Shamshery directed: “Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are hereby set aside… Petitioner shall be treated in continuous service and shall be entitled to 25% back wages.” [Para 35–36]

At the same time, the Court gave the Respondents liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings or await the outcome of the pending criminal trial, which is still underway.

This decision by the Allahabad High Court stands as a stern reminder that departmental inquiries, even though not bound by the strict rules of evidence, cannot be reduced to echo chambers of police accusations. The ruling reinforces the importance of independent application of mind, evidentiary standards, and natural justice in service law.

A confession alone—particularly one recorded during police investigation—is insufficient unless corroborated by reliable evidence. The dismissal of a government or bank employee must not only be procedurally sound but also substantively justified by concrete material.

“In absence of material evidence indicating petitioner’s involvement, charges could not be treated as proved – Findings of guilt not sustainable.” [Para 34]

Date of Decision: 29 July 2025