Standard of Proof in the Departmental Inquiry

Standard of Proof in the Departmental Inquiry: 

The standard of proof required in a departmental oral inquiry differs materially from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court has given clear rulings to that effect that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and that the standard of proof required in a disciplinary inquiry is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the proof required in a criminal trial. 

[Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 SLR SC 355; State of AP vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 and Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1978(2) SLR SC 46] 

The departmental authorities, if the inquiry is properly held, are the sole judge of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the constitution. 

[State of AP vs. S. Sreerama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723] 

If two views are possible, court shall not interfere by substituting its own satisfaction or opinion for the satisfaction or opinion of the authority exercising the power, in judicial review. 

[Union of India vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, 2002(1) SLJ SC 1] 

The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court/Tribunal in its power of review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. 

[B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995(6) SCC 749]