Charanjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab And Others
! "#$%& '! (%$%$"(!
)** *% %( '"# + ",% (!- (-.",("%-
!(-("%
/!)$0(1* !2 3,04 %(3 !% (.(%$%$"(! /!)$- " 0 ", $33'"# +
(.(%$%$"(!3+67 6 % $-.(%$%$"3 -- $8-% (!,(!
'"$- 2("%, %(, 9
:""(;'!(<9=37 (!(+6- ( - +(("42.'8-!$86!(%$!(, !2-(!0$4( ", 8-.! 6- !>' - $"?
% ( ">'$!6 (.!% , %(,
3 7 (!(+6 % ( 4 !?(- 8(0(88(, ? $"-%% (.(%$%$"(!7(!(.!0(,+6% (">'$!6
$4(!
", 8-4 88("?(,% (..(88 %('% !$%6!,(!, %(,
:""(;'!( < = 7 (!(+6 (! ..( 8 .!( (!!(, ? $"-% % ( .'"$- 2("%!,(!. --(,+6% ($-4$.8$" !6'% !$%6 -+((" ,$-2$--(,
@( !"(, 4'"-(8 ! % ( .(%$%$"(! -'+2$%- % % % ( .(%$%$"(! -"%,(2 ",(,+!$+( ",% (42.8 $" "% - 8-"% +((" +8(%.!0(% %% (.(%$%$"(!,(2 ",(,+!$+($" 4%$% -
"86 +((" -% %(, +( !( % ( ">'$!6
$4(! % % % ( +!$+( 7 - ,(2 ",(,+67 6 4,(7!,- @( !"(, 4'"-(8 -'+2$%- % % % ( .(%$%$"(! - " $22 4'8 %(-(!0$4(!(4!,% (!4!(,$% ", %% ( ?(", (!
-(!0$4( %(! 0$"?42.8(%(, 6( !-3% ( 88(? %$"- 0(+(("
8(0(88(,7!"?
'886+6% (42.8 $" "%37 7 - @'2+(!, ! ", 7 -.!(--'!$-$"?% (.(%$%$"(!@( !"(,4'"-(8-'+2$%-% %% ( ">'$!6(.!%!(8$(-"% (-% %(2("% % (42.8 $" "%7 $4 $"
$%-(8 $-"%-'
$4$("% ! 8,$"?% (.(%$%$"(!?'$8%6 9 @( !"(,4'"-(8 - 8- '!% (!-% %(,% %% (">'$!6
$4(!?%% (-% %(2("%- % (!7$%"(--(-!(4!,(, !2% ( !(-("%$"?
$4(! ",% (">'$!6
$4(! - 4%(,$"4""$0 "4( 7$% % (!(-("%$"?
$4(!% 8,% (.(%$%$"(!?'$8%6 % (- $, 4 !?(- (*@!(.!% 8-!( 8(4%-% %% (0$4($"% (7 - % % % (42.8 $" "% 0(4"-$,(!(,% (-'+2$--$"- ",4 !( '886.(!'-(, % (">'$!6(.!% -7(88 -% (!,(!. --(,+6% ($-4$.8$" !6 '% !$%6 A (-4.( #',$4$ 8!(0$(7$",(. !%2("% 8$">'$!6$- 8$2$%(,"
!"#$ % &' $"( # )*+,) -+*3 % (.(;'!% - (8, -'",(!
< Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge
no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e.
the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f.
the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g.
the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h.
the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
B ( !(- $,0$(7 -+(("'. (8,+6% (% !((#',?(- ("4 % (*'.!(2('!%$"" # .
'$ # .
"/'# 0 #/"
!"#$ % 2# # . )*+3 '5#"6"
'# $"$ ,*3% - +((" ? $"!(%$(! %(,$"
!"#$ % '2# !
)*)7+ 83 -'",(!
< "28.
We are unable to commend the approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. There was no good reason for the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority."
8.
"% (+ -$- % ( !(- $,?'$,(8$"(- -8 $,,7"+6 % (.(;'!%3$ % (4 -( % (.(%$%$"(!$-(; 2$"(,3% $-'!%
$",-% %% ( !?'2("%-! $-(, - +0(+6% (.(%$%$"(!4 ""%+( ("%(!% $"(,+6 % $- '!% -% $-'!% $-"%-$%%$"? $" ..( 8 ? $"-%% (!,(!-. --(,+6% ($-4$.8$" !6'% !$%6 ",% ( ..(88 %('% !$%6 (0$(7% 1("+6% (">'$!6
$4(! ", 44(.%(,+6% ($-4$.8$" !6'% !$%64 ""%+(0(!%'!"(,2(!(86 +(4 '-(% (!(4 "+( ,$
(!("%7 6 81$"? %% ((0$,("4( ( ">'$!6
$4(! -.!0(,% (4 !?(-3 3 ",A ? $"-%% (
.(%$%$"(! ",. !%$ 886.!0(,4 !?("B% - 8-42(" !(4!,% %% ( ..(88 "% -!( '-(,%?$0( (!0$4(- 2.8( !
2 %4 $"?% (0$4(7$% % (0$4( % (8 ,6$"% ( ',$88% (-( -.(4%- 0( +((" 4"-$,(!(, ", .'"$- 2("% 42.'8-!6 !(%$!(2("% -+((". --(,37 $4 3$"% (.$"$" % $-'!%3 4 ""%+(- $,%+( '"#'-%$ $(, ",$-422("-'! %(7$% % ( 88(? %$"-8(0(88(, ",.!0(, ? $"-%% (.(%$%$"(!
"0$(7% (!( 3"$"%(!
(!("4($"% ($2.'?"(,!,(!- $-7 !! "%(,!$%.(%$%$"$-,$-2$--(,
*+*9)*)7
:&
2 2% (% (!-.( 1$"?C!( -"(, (-C (% (!!(.!% +8(
(-C