Disciplinary proceedings need only ‘preponderance of probability’, not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’: Madras HC

Bottom

Two workers at Greaves Cotton Limited’s Light Engine II Unit have been dismissed following allegations of sabotage. S. Harikumar was accused of deliberately dropping a B8 spring washer into an engine, prompting a customer to return the product. B. Bharathi was accused of intentionally dropping a B6 thrust washer between the cylinder heads and a piston, detected during testing. Both workers were initially suspended and subsequently subject to departmental inquiry under Clauses 16(4) and 16(15) of the Company’s Standing Regulations. After the accusations were proven, the administration terminated its services on October 5, 2009.

The workers challenged their dismissal before the Vellore Labor Court. The court first issued a preliminary order confirming the impartiality of the internal inquiry, then rejected their claims in final judgments dated August 7, 2012. A single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed their subsequent petitions, leading to the present intra-judicial appeals. .

Arguments

Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the inquiry officer’s order suffered from perversity, a crucial aspect ignored by both the Labor Court and the single judge. He claimed that most of the findings were not based on any evidence and that the inquiry officer’s conclusions were drawn from mere guesswork. The administration’s lawyers countered that the investigation was conducted fairly, as recognized in the Labor Court’s injunction. He emphasized that the inquiry’s conclusions were based on the appellants’ own statements and not on presumptions. The lawyer argued that both the Labor Court’s rulings and the single judge’s orders were supported by evidence.

Court’s reasoning

First, the court emphasized that while criminal convictions require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” disciplinary proceedings operate under the more flexible “preponderance of probability” standard. This distinction, the court noted, has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, making it a well-established principle in employment law.

Secondly, the court addressed the appellants’ argument regarding the inquiry officer’s use of the word “presumed” in relation to the damage to the piston. While recognizing this terminology as potentially problematic, the court characterized it as a mere stray observation that did not undermine the overall validity of the inquiry. The court emphasized that the wider evidence, especially from cross-examination, established a clear chain of circumstances pointing to the appellants’ involvement in the fall of the pressure washers.

Thirdly, the court examined the proportionality of the sentence. Given the seriousness of the sabotage at an engine production unit, where such actions could potentially endanger end users and damage the company’s reputation, the court considered the dismissal penalty to be proportionate to the misconduct. The bench emphasized that in cases involving industrial sabotage, the broader implications for public safety and business integrity must be considered.

Finally, the court reviewed the single judge’s methodology in analyzing the evidence. It concluded that the single judge meticulously examined each piece of evidence, correctly applied the “preponderance of probability” standard, and correctly concluded that no one else could have fitted the lock washers to the engines. Finding no procedural irregularities, the Division Bench dismissed both appeals.

Date: 22.10.2024

Quote: 2024:MHC:3606

Lawyer for the Appellants: Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Advisor to Mr. K. Sudalai Kannu

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Raghunathan to M/s. TS Gopalan

Click here to read/download the order