The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

e the Supreme Court in the case of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (1972). A copy of the judgement of the Supreme Court in this case is also enclosed. 304 2. It is requested that State Governments may kindly keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court, especially the observations of the Court reproduced below, while dealing with disciplinary cases against the members of the All India Services:— (i) “A disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.” (ii) “A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from proved facts.” This observation has been made in the context of the facts as stated in para 14 of the judgement. (iii) Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court. (iv) “Now it is settled by the decision of this Court in State of Orissa V. Vidyabhushan Mahapatra (6) that if the order of punishing authority can be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether charge proved alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the misdemeanour established.” [D.P. & A.R. letter No. 11018/2/75—AIS(III), dated 30th June, 1975.]