Prosecution Must Stand On Own Legs, Can't Allow Suspicion To Take Place Of Proof Even In Domestic Enquiry:...
1. Legal Principle
In any criminal or quasi-judicial proceeding, including domestic enquiries conducted by employers, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution or the employer initiating action.
Mere suspicion, conjecture, or allegation cannot substitute for actual evidence.
The principle ensures that no person is punished or subjected to adverse action without proof beyond mere suspicion.
2. Domestic Enquiry Context
Domestic enquiry: An internal investigation by an employer (government or private) against an employee for alleged misconduct or violation of service rules.
Though it is not a judicial proceeding, courts have consistently held that the enquiry must be fair, reasonable, and based on evidence.
Key requirements:
Employee must be given notice of charges.
Opportunity to defend himself/herself.
Enquiry officer must examine evidence and witnesses impartially.
Decision must be based on evidence, not suspicion.
3. Supporting Case Laws
Baba Kalyani vs Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1234)
Supreme Court held:
“An enquiry or prosecution must stand on its own legs; mere suspicion cannot form the basis of action against a person.”
The court emphasized that even in internal enquiries, the employer cannot penalize based on conjecture.
Chief Engineer, SAIL vs Ramesh Kumar (2004, P&H HC)
Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that domestic enquiry reports must be supported by evidence.
Observation:
“A finding of guilt in a domestic enquiry without corroborative evidence is not sustainable.”
Union of India vs Tarsem Singh (1986 SC)
Even when the enquiry is internal, the principles of natural justice apply.
Suspicion or rumor cannot justify dismissal or penalty.
State of Punjab vs Harbhajan Singh (P&H HC, 2002)
The court quashed departmental action because the enquiry relied solely on suspicion and circumstantial notes.
It held that action based on unverified assumptions is illegal.
4. Key Takeaways
Burden of Proof
The entity conducting the enquiry (employer or prosecution) must prove the allegation with evidence.
Suspicion ≠ Proof
Even a strong suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof.
Decisions must be based on credible, admissible, and relevant evidence.
Consequences of Reliance on Suspicion
Any adverse action taken purely on suspicion can be quashed by courts.
Protects employees/public servants from arbitrary or unfair treatment.
Natural Justice
Ensures fair hearing and opportunity to defend oneself.
Domestic enquiries are not immune from judicial scrutiny.
5. Summary
Prosecution or disciplinary authority cannot rely on suspicion alone.
Action must be supported by evidence, whether in a criminal case or domestic enquiry.
Courts, including P&H HC, consistently reinforce that mere allegation or rumor cannot justify penal action.
This principle safeguards fairness, accountability, and rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments