Proof Standards in Workplace Investigations: Addressing Allegations of Sabotage

Case Analysis

On 22nd October 2024, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of S. Harikumar and Anr. vs. the Presiding Officer & Anr., adjudicated allegations of deliberate sabotage by two employees in a factory’s Engine Testing and Assembly Sections, with accusations that their actions led to operational disruptions and potential reputational damage to the company. Following an internal investigation, both employees were removed from service, sparking a legal battle over the evidence and the standards of proof applied during the disciplinary proceedings. The case raises significant questions about how evidence is weighed in internal inquiries and the threshold for imposing disciplinary measures in industrial settings.

Facts of the Case

The appellants, employed by the respondent company in critical roles, faced charges of intentionally tampering with engine parts. Their duties involved handling and testing engines, ensuring quality and adherence to safety standards before final delivery to customers. The specifics of the allegations are as follows:

1. First Appellant (W.A.No.2960 of 2021): The first appellant is accused of dropping a B8 spring washer into an engine intentionally. This act led to the engine being returned by a customer, which disrupted operations and tarnished the company’s reputation.
2. Second Appellant (W.A.No.2962 of 2021): The second appellant is alleged to have inserted a B6 spring washer between the cylinder heads and piston of an engine. Fortunately, this issue was detected during testing, preventing the flawed engine from being shipped to the customer. However, the act represented a severe breach of duty if intentional.

Both employees were issued show-cause notices, and the company conducted a departmental inquiry under specific clauses in the Standing Orders Rules. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the allegations were substantiated, leading to the appellants’ termination. Dissatisfied with the inquiry’s outcome, the appellants contested their removal in the Labour Court, Vellore. However, the court upheld the inquiry’s findings, concluding that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly.

Standards of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Preponderance of Probability vs. Beyond Reasonable Doubt

A central issue in this case is the standard of proof applied in disciplinary versus criminal proceedings. In criminal law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” This stringent standard ensures that there is a high level of certainty before convicting an individual of a crime. Conversely, in civil or disciplinary matters, the standard is typically based on the “preponderance of probability,” meaning that a decision can be made if the evidence tilts in favor of one side, even slightly.

The Labour Court, in upholding the termination, relied on the principle of preponderance of probability. This approach reflects the court’s view that while criminal proceedings require complete elimination of doubt, a disciplinary inquiry can arrive at a conclusion if the evidence is more likely than not to indicate misconduct. The preponderance of probability standard allows disciplinary authorities to act on incidents of misconduct without meeting the high evidentiary standards of criminal courts, facilitating smoother workplace regulation.

Examination of the Inquiry Officer’s Findings

The appellants’ counsel argued that the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions were based on presumptions rather than substantial evidence. The counsel highlighted that certain findings relied on inferences rather than direct proof of intentional misconduct. To understand this argument, let’s look at the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions regarding each appellant:

• First Appellant: The officer found that the appellant was the only person working on the engine during the specified time, strengthening the suspicion of intentional misconduct. The appellant himself admitted to being the sole handler for approximately 40 minutes, adding weight to the possibility of his involvement.
• Second Appellant: Similarly, the second appellant’s role in installing cylinder heads during his shift coincided with the time when the washer was allegedly placed between the cylinder heads and piston. The Inquiry Officer interpreted this as indicative of misconduct.

The learned single judge, upon reviewing the evidence, supported the Inquiry Officer’s findings, noting that the acts could not have been committed by anyone other than the appellants. This judgment was based on the circumstantial evidence and the employees’ own testimonies, which hinted at possible complicity in the alleged sabotage. The court found no error in the Inquiry Officer’s reliance on probabilities rather than definitive proof.

Key Takeaways: Preponderance of Probability in Disciplinary Proceedings

The concept of preponderance of probability, as clarified by legal precedents, allows for a balanced approach in civil and disciplinary matters. In civil proceedings, the court can decide in favor of the side that presents a slightly more convincing case, even if there remains some doubt. However, this does not mean that a mere guess or presumption is sufficient. The evidence should still reasonably support the finding of misconduct.

In this case, the reliance on preponderance of probability allowed the Inquiry Officer and subsequently the Labour Court to conclude that the appellants were likely responsible for the acts of sabotage, given the circumstantial evidence and the lack of any other plausible explanation.

Distinguishing Criminal and Disciplinary Standards of Proof

It is essential to distinguish between the criminal and disciplinary standards of proof, especially in cases like this where alleged misconduct involves potentially criminal actions:

1. Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Standard): This standard is applied in criminal cases to ensure that innocent individuals are not wrongfully punished. The evidence must leave no room for a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.

Preponderance of Probability (Civil/Disciplinary Standard): In disciplinary proceedings, authorities do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, a probable inference that misconduct occurred, based on the available evidence, is sufficient. This standard is crucial for maintaining workplace discipline, as it allows organizations to take corrective action without the stringent requirements of criminal proceedings.

Parting Thoughts

The allegations of sabotage in this case brought to light the nuanced application of standards of proof in disciplinary contexts. While the appellants argued that the findings were based on assumptions, the Labour Court affirmed the conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence, applying the principle of preponderance of probability. This case underscores the balance between an employee’s right to fair treatment and an employer’s need to follow the procedure established under the Law. 

Ultimately, the court upheld the disciplinary actions, emphasizing that preponderance of probability can be a valid basis for decision-making in non-criminal contexts. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of conducting thorough investigations and clearly documenting evidence to ensure that disciplinary actions are legally sound and defensible in court.