The State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh
Background
The respondent, a police constable in Rajasthan, was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry found him involved in the murder of a man with whom he had a long-standing land dispute, based largely on witness testimony. He had separately been acquitted of the murder charge in a criminal trial after several prosecution witnesses turned hostile. A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court upheld his dismissal, but a Division Bench reversed this and ordered his reinstatement (without back wages) after re-examining the enquiry evidence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a criminal acquittal does not automatically undo a disciplinary finding, because the two proceedings use different standards of proof, "beyond reasonable doubt" for a criminal trial versus "preponderance of probabilities" for a departmental enquiry. Reviewing the evidence, the Court found enough material (the respondent's proximity to the crime scene around the time of the murder, a documented prior death threat, and a land dispute motive) to meet that lower threshold, even though it would not have been enough to convict him criminally. The Court also held that the High Court's Division Bench had overstepped the limited scope of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence like an appellate court, rather than only checking whether the enquiry's findings were supported by some evidence and free of perversity. It set aside the reinstatement, while using its Article 142 power to award retiral dues as if the respondent's service had ended upon completing minimum qualifying service, and upheld the denial of back wages.
Lesson Learnt
Being acquitted in a criminal case does not guarantee protection from losing one's job over the same underlying conduct: departmental/service disciplinary proceedings apply a lower standard of proof, and courts reviewing such proceedings can only check for basic fairness and some supporting evidence, not re-weigh the evidence themselves.