Amrik Dass Bhatti v. Presiding Officer And Another
!"
#$%$!& '
()* ,-$.
%% / $ $ $!& - 1 -%(% - %$2$&3 ""$# -+ & - ) !4 0
&2(% -$ ) -$5(& )#(, 5!(- !(-
/ &2$3 -/
&2
&! / - %7!&2 & % 8'
96 80 : :
8
:
:
:
8
:
:
0 6
!
""
# #$ # % & ' ()*
"
+ - + "" #/ # ##0 & ' ($1 * - "
+ - +
"
23, 4
- "
+
,
+ - +
" " - +
"
$ - "
+ "
+
, #/ # ##0
5+
3
"
",
# #$ # % & ' ()*
, 6", + " !
" "
+"
" "
23, 4
",
/ !
" "
. ",
,
", +
9" + "
:;+" !
! "#$
" , +
""
,
",
"
$
( "21. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the Impugned Judgment cannot be sustained. On a prefatory note, we would begin by quoting what the Division Bench has noted on page No.7: 'It is well settled preposition (sic) of law that courts will not act as an Appellate Court and re+assess the evidence led in domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view was possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of the evidence will be no ground for interfering with the finding in departmental enquiry. However, when the finding of fact recorded in departmental enquiry is based on no evidence or where it is clearly perverse then it will invite the intervention of the court.'
22.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 23.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 24.
The above was reiterated by a Bench of equal strength in State Bank of India v Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC
249. Three learned Judges of this Court stated as under in State of Andhra Pradesh v Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557:
'21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two
propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723: (1964) 3 SCR 25: (1964) 2 LLJ 150]. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant.
The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion.
enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges 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. XXX
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding.
Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477: (1964) 5 SCR 64].
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be
scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do. XXX
26. For these reasons we are of opinion that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the dismissal order by reviewing and reassessing the evidence. The appeal is accepted. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. Parties will pay and bear their own costs."
) :
23, 4
" "
""
", - +
#/ # ##0 & ' ($1 * %
" "
!
9 7##1(
+<<"
"
+ = 6
" "
6
# !
" "
" :;+" !
+<<"
""
,
+<<" 2
:;+" !
% & '
(
!
)!* #$
% % & "
"
6",
"
( " 6.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal passed on proved charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination and giving threats to the superior of dire consequences on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K.
Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Article 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6.
Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent.
6.4 At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable."
!
+<<"
", +<<"
6
+<<"
= 6
. +<<" 6",
- "
+" - +
" "
, $ .3",
()* :
8
:
:
harsha > 61 ? > +"