Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement

"Once the plea of alibi is judicially accepted and attains finality, the entire genesis of the departmental charge stands washed away on facts." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 20, 2026, held that departmental proceedings are unsustainable when they are founded on the same factual matrix and witnesses as a criminal case that resulted in an acquittal, particularly where a plea of alibi was judicially established.

A division bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that if the foundation of a departmental inquiry rests on evidence already rejected by a criminal court, the resulting disciplinary action is based on "no evidence" and warrants judicial interference.

The respondent, a police constable, was accused of involvement in narcotic trafficking under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act following a 2015 seizure. While the criminal trial ended in his acquittal after he proved he was at official training during the incident, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service relying on the same police witnesses whose testimony was discarded by the trial court. The State filed this writ appeal after a Single Judge set aside the dismissal and ordered the respondent's reinstatement with full benefits.

The primary questions before the court were whether departmental proceedings can be sustained when founded on evidence judicially discredited in a criminal trial and whether the judicial acceptance of a plea of alibi nullifies the factual basis of a simultaneous disciplinary inquiry.

The Court scrutinized the findings of the Special Judge, Phulbani, which had established that the respondent was undergoing official CCTNS training from May 25 to May 30, 2015, the period during which the alleged offence occurred. The bench noted that the respondent produced training records and the testimony of the trainer (D.W.1) to prove he was not at the spot of the crime. The Court emphasized that since this judicial finding of alibi had attained finality, the very basis of the departmental charge—which alleged his presence at the crime scene—ceased to exist. "Once the plea of alibi is judicially accepted and attains finality, the entire genesis of the case is washed away on facts."

The bench further observed that the inquiry officer had relied on the statements of several police officials, including ASIs and Havildars, who were the exact same witnesses examined by the prosecution in the criminal trial. The Court found that the version of these witnesses, claiming the respondent was present during the detection of the contraband, had been explicitly discarded by the trial court after a full-fledged appreciation of evidence. The bench held that the disciplinary authority could not arrive at a contrary conclusion using the same discredited material. "The findings of the disciplinary authority in any case cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny on the fact in issue before the court."

Addressing the State's contention regarding the differing standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings, the Court acknowledged the settled principles in Nelson Motis v. Union of India and S. Samuthiram. However, the bench clarified that while departmental proceedings operate on the "preponderance of probabilities," they cannot be sustained if they are based on "no evidence" or if the findings are perverse. The Court held that relying on witnesses whose testimony was judicially branded as unreliable constitutes a case of "no evidence," making the dismissal order vulnerable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. "Departmental proceedings and their conclusion are based on 'no evidence' when the same witnesses' version has been clearly discarded by a judicial finding."

The Court also rejected the State's argument that the Single Judge had exceeded the limits of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence. The Division Bench noted that interference is mandatory when a disciplinary order is based on assumptions or discredited testimony, citing United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee. The bench concluded that the Single Judge was correct in setting aside the dismissal as the disciplinary authority failed to produce any independent material beyond the failed criminal prosecution. "The eventual conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the departmental action against the respondent, cannot be faulted with on law as well as facts."

In its final order, the Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the direction to reinstate the respondent. The Court ordered the authorities to extend all consequential service and financial benefits to the respondent expeditiously, noting that his dismissal for a fault he did not commit was untenable in the eyes of the law.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2026