Gujarat High Court
F.S. Malik vs State Of Gujarat on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7592 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
F.S. MALIK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - STATE
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 20/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule was issued by order dated 15.05.2008 and thereafter, pleadings are completed and written submissions are also filed by the parties. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"10. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of Page 1 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to :-
(A) quash and set aside the impugned punishment order dated 15.10.2007, passed by the respondent authorities, Annexure-A to this petition, whereby the petitioner is removed from service, and (B) declare and hold that the finding recorded by Shri J.A.Pandya, Inquiry Officer, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, without any further material adverse to the petitioner having been adduced before him, is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, and consequently quash and set aside the same, and all subsequent proceedings, and (C) without prejudice to the prayer clauses (B) above, declare and hold that the action of the Disciplinary Authority, of agreeing with the finding recorded by Shri J.A.Pandya, the Inquiry Officer, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, without any further material adverse to the petitioner, having been adduced before him, is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and consequently quash and set aside the same, and all subsequent proceedings, and (D) direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, and Page 2 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined (E) further be pleased to hold that the action of the respondent authorities of placing the petitioner under suspension was illegal and arbitrary, and consequently quash and set aside the same, and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to treat the suspension period of the petitioner, till date of reinstatement, as duty period for all purposes, with all consequential benefits, and (F) award the cost of this petition, and (G) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to grant the mandatory injunction against the further implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 15.10.2007 Annexure-A to this petition, and (H) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service, and (I) grant any other relief or pass any other order, which the Honourable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the Page 3 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined petitioner in this petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that on 14.07.1981, the petitioner joined the service of the Government as Deputy Mamlatdar. On 11.02.1986, the petitioner joined as direct recruit Mamlatdar. Petitioner had worked as Mamlatdar at Padadhri District: Rajkot for the period from 07.09.1987 to 04.03.1989. On 13.04.1992, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector. On 14.07.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged irregularity in the Office of Mamlatdar, Padadhri and FIR was also filed for the same. Even after suspension, petitioner was not asked anything in this regard for years. Under these circumstances the said suspension was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No: 7889 of 2000, wherein the respondent authorities were directed to complete inquiry on or before 31.12.2001.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that on 10.08.2000, after filing of the above petition, Government issued charge sheet to the Page 4 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined petitioner for alleged irregularity for which the petitioner was place under suspension. On 11.12.2000, the petitioner submitted his defence statement to the authorities and on 13.2.2001 Government amended the said charge sheet and on 11.10.2001 Government appointed Inquiry Officer and on 11.9.2002 Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that on 14.10.2002, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that on 3.12.2002, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation and on 28.01.2003, Government issued punishment order of removal of the petitioner from service. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that there were number of illegalities and irregularities in the said inquiry, therefore the petitioner had challenged the same by way of filing a petition being Special Civil Application No: 2985 of 2003. On 25.10.2004, the said petition was allowed by this Honourable Court, whereby the punishment order dated 28.1.2003 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority from the stage it Page 5 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined was vitiated. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner was neither supplied the required additional documents nor witness was now available for examination and still, Inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. On 11.7.2006, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. On 31.7.2006, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation and on 15.10.2007 Government maintained the order of removal of the petitioner from service.
3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that it is the grievance of the petitioner that the very initiation, continuation and conclusion of the departmental inquiry is illegal and arbitrary. There are number of illegalities, which are stated in detail in the petition. Broadly, it is the case of the petitioner that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice, at more than one stages of the inquiry, there has been perversity on the part of the Inquiry Officer as well as on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. There has been inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and concluding the departmental inquiry, which has Page 6 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined operated against the petitioner and which has prejudiced the defense of the petitioner. The approach of the Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority has been biased all throughout. The petitioner is not given fair trial either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5.1 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that on 14.07.1981, the petitioner joined the service as Deputy Mamlatdar and subsequently, on 11.02.1986, pursuant to selection process by GPSC, he was appointed as Mamlatdar by direct recruitment and the petitioner worked as Mamlatdar, Padadhri, District: Rajkot, from 07.09.1987 to 04.03.1989 and on 13.4.1992, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector. He has further submitted that on 14.07.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the Page 7 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined alleged irregularity for his posting as Mamlatdar Padadhri and on 10.08.2000, the departmental charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner and on 28.1.2003, punishment of removal from service came to be imposed upon to the petitioner after departmental inquiry.
5.2 He has further submitted that on 25.10.2004, the petitioner challenged the said punishment order by filing SCA No. 2985 of 2003 which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2004 and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority from the stage of supplying the necessary and relevant documents and permitting examination of Shri A.A. Doshi as the defence witness. He has further submitted that on 20.7.2005, the petitioner requested for the following necessary and relevant documents:- (i) Day Book (Rojmel) of the year 1998 (regarding payment of the amount of compensation awarded for acquisition of land), (ii) Taluka Form No. 17 (regarding deposit of the amount be paid by the Land Acquisition Officer.) and (iii) Movement Register of cash book (regarding date 12.2.88 and 14.2.88) and it was also requested to examination Shri A.A. Doshi Retire Clerk, Page 8 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Mamlatdar Office, as defence witness. He has further submitted that on 04.08.2005, the petitioner was provided the following document; (i) Day Book (Rojmel) upto 30.6.1986 and it is pertinent to note that, the petitioner had requested for the Day Book of the year 1988 i.e. the period of alleged misconduct. It is further pertinent to note that, Day Book of the earlier period is available but the Day Book of the relevant period is not available.
This document is specifically referred to in the charge sheet and on the basis thereof alleged misconduct is attributed to the petitioner. Thus, necessary material is suppressed as per the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, (ii) Page No. 1 to 173 of Taluka Form No. 17. (Thought it was stated that, Page No. 1 to 173 is provided the same was limited up to Page No. 51 and the last entry was of No. 250 which was dated on 25.3.1985) Thus the Taluka Form No. 17 of the relevant period is also not provided as well as (iii) So far as Moment Registered is concerned it was stated that the same was destroyed. Thus, the documents which were not only necessary and relevant for the purpose of defence of the petitioner, but they were even referred to in the charge sheet (Rojmel and Taluka Form No. 17) Page 9 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined and were not provided to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the matter was remitted by the Hon'ble High Court for that very specific purpose. He has further submitted that so far as examination of Shri A.A.Doshi as defence witness is concerned, he was not available and therefore he could not be examined. He has further submitted that it is pertinent to note that Shri A.A.Doshi was the co-delinquent and a joint departmental inquiry was conducted against 3 officers including Shri A.A.Doshi. The petitioner wanted to examine him from the beginning, however at the relevant point of time though Shri Doshi was available during the course of inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer did not permit examination of Shri Doshi. Now subsequently, due to passage of time, Shri Doshi was not available and he could not be examined. This has resulted into serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner, for which the petitioner cannot be faulted.
5.3 He has further submitted that thus on both the counts, for which the matter was remitted to the inquiry officer, which could not be fulfilled and thus the defect which had crapped in the earlier proceedings continued Page 10 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined to exits. This would vitiate the fresh punishment order as well as there is gross violation of principle of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that, the above referred grounds where specifically taken by the petitioner before the inquiry officer in at the first point of time, however, not only the same was not dealt with, but even no cognizance thereof was taken by the inquiry officer. Therefore, the petitioner had requested that the inquiry may not be entrusted to the same inquiry officer as in that case, the inquiry officer would not conduct independent and judicious inquiry and will mechanically hold the charges as proved. He has further submitted that in spite of the specific request of the petitioner, the inquiry came to be entrusted to the very same inquiry officer. This time as it was a matter of record that the required documents could not be provided to the petitioner and that the defence witness could not be examined, the inquiry officer was bound to record the same and has accordingly recorded the same. He has further submitted that it is pertinent to note that, though the relevant documents were not provided to the petitioner, on the basis of the available material on record, it was demonstrated before the inquiry officer Page 11 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined that there are instances wherein though there are entries recorded in the Day Book, the said entries are not reflecting in the Cash Book.
5.4 He has further submitted that thus, if the Day Book for the relevant period would have been provided to the petitioner, he could have demonstrated that the entry with regard to the alleged misconduct is very much there in the Rojmel but the same is not reflected in the Cash Book. This itself vitiates the departmental inquiry. However in-spite of recording the findings as above, the inquiry officer, as apprehended, mechanically recorded findings against petitioner. In order to demonstrate that the petitioner is meted out with fairness, the inquiry officer, on his own, examined Mamlatdar Padadhari as Court Witness. However, the portion of the deposition of the said witness, which was specifically in support of the case of the petitioner, is deliberately discarded by the inquiry officer. Even the petitioner was not permitted to put relevant question to the said witness. This shows biased approach on the part of the Inquiry Officer. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also placed on record the file Page 12 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined noting obtained under the Right to Information Act. He has further submitted that from the file noting at page 268, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to change of inquiry officer was taken into consideration by the Revenue Department and it was recorded that further proceedings of the inquiry may not be undertaken by Shri J.A. Pandya. However, in spite of the said noting of Revenue Department, the GAD mechanically entrusted the inquiry to the same inquiry officer i.e. Shri J. A. Pandya. He has further submitted that from the file noting, it is also evident that the department had also taken a note of the fact that Shri A.A.Doshi was earlier also involved in misappropriation of funds by using it for his personal use, which was accepted by Shri Doshi on an earlier occasion. Therefore, it was specifically recorded that, similar modus operandi at this time also cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts, a noting was made that as the compliance of the direction of this Court could not be made by providing necessary documents and evidence to the petitioner, the report of the inquiry officer may not be accepted as it is and the charges may be held to be partly proved by holding that the Page 13 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined petitioner was not involved in misappropriation, but was negligent in discharge of his duties. However, thereafter in a mechanical manner the punishment order came to be imposed. He has further submitted that it is pertinent to note that, while passing the impugned order, though the petitioner had made a detailed representation dated 31.7.2006 to the respondent authority, none of the contentions of the petitioner have been taken into consideration and absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned order came to be passed, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5.5 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) State of Orissa v. Chandra Nandi reported in 2019 (4) SCC 357.
(ii) Nareshbhai Bhagubhai vs Union Of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 1.
5.6 He has further submitted that it is also pertinent to note that, even the advice of the GPSC, which is Page 14 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined taken into consideration by the respondent authority while imposing punishment, is provided to the petitioner along with the punishment order. Therefore, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to make representation against the advise of the GPSC resulting into gross violation of principles of natural justice. In support of this, reliance is placed upon the following judgment by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
(i) Union Of India & Ors vs S.K. Kapoor reported in 2011 (4) SCC 589.
(ii) S.N. Narula reported in 2011 (4) SCC 591.
(ii) Union Of India & Ors vs R.P.Singh reported in 2014 (7) SCC 340.
5.7 In view of the above submissions, he has prayed to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1:-
6.1 Per contra, Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State has Page 15 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1. She has further submitted that scope of judicial review in case of reasoned decision of disciplinary authority is narrow and under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not interfere with the findings or the decision of the disciplinary authority unless it is shockingly disproportionate and hits the conscience. She has further submitted that delay in initiating or concluding the disciplinary inquiry would not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary inquiry. She has further submitted that Hon'ble High Courts while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction, would not re-appreciate the evidences thereby leading to interference in factual findings of the disciplinary authority. She has further submitted that non-supply of the GPSC opinion wherein either the punishment is upheld or is not enhanced, would not lead to adversarial orders or violation of principle of natural justice hence, decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of S. K. Kapoor (supra) and S. Narula (supra) ae not applicable in instant case. 6.2 She has further placed reliance towards the observations made in punishment order dated 15.07.2007 Page 16 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined and inquired report dated 05.12.2005 and has submitted that amount of award of land acquisition was withdrawn by self cheque (No. 19739 dated 14.12.1988) (Rs. 1,79,543.58/-) and no entry was made in cashbook nor paid to the land holder. She has further submitted that Rs. 21,027/- towards compensation was approved in name of Jivtiben Kadabhai & others and that the amount was not accepted in light of dispute on heirship Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition by letter dated 18.12.1985 & 21.08.1986 was sent to petitioner to deposit under revenue head. Instead, the petitioner deposited in savings account. She has further submitted that the petitioner has put signatures on both the self cheques No. 19738 dated 12.02.1988 and No. 19739 dated 14.12.1988 and designated Shri Doshi for withdrawal of same. The petitioner has accepted in front of inquiry officer that in both the transactions, at every place the signature is made by petitioner. She has further submitted that it is also evident while examining the witness by the inquiry officer, that the amount withdrawn is not paid to the land holder and the said witness was also cross examined by the friend of petitioner from which it become evident that the land holder has not gone to the Page 17 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined office of petitioner for the purpose of receiving amount of land acquisition award nor met the petitioner for same and that the witnesses has also stated that they have not gone to the office of petitioner nor claimed the amount of compensation of land acquisition in writing or orally. Yet, on both the occasions, amount is withdrawn on the basis of self cheques signed by the petitioner. She has further submitted that the amount withdrawn from account is to be deposited under R.D Head by passing order by the petitioner and amount withdrawn is to be paid through challan or which there should be signature of Mamlatdar or any officer designated by him. However, no such orders are passed by the petitioner for withdrawal of amount. She has further submitted that upon verification from concerned authority, on date wise statement from the year 1986 to 1990, no amount is deposited under revenue head. She has further submitted that the petitioner was also asked about the procedure for withdrawal of amount of land acquisition in which the petitioner stated that a person comes to the office for the purpose of claiming the amount of land acquisition award, the self cheque is produced before petitioner by the clerk & Dy. Mamlatdar for the purpose Page 18 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined of signature and thereafter, clerk is sent to the bank for withdrawal of said amount. Further, entry is made in the cashbook and thereafter, the amount is paid in front of them to the said person and if such person does not come to the office of petitioner for the purpose of claiming the amount, then the said amount is kept in cash box by applying seal of petitioner. She has further submitted that the amount of compensation was required to be paid in front of petitioner and that the same has not happened nor the petitioner has investigated as to whether any amount of compensation which is withdrawn is paid to the land holders. She has further submitted that the petitioner was also asked as to when the petitioner came to know about such misappropriation, on which the petitioner replied in the year 1995. It can be believed that the petitioner and Shri Doshi have conspired for such misappropriation from the fact in the year 1995, the petitioner came to know about such misappropriation and as per the say of petitioner, if Shri Doshi has misappropriated the amount of compensation, then why no proceedings including criminal are initiated by the petitioner against Shri Doshi as per the instructions of government in such type of cases. She has Page 19 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined further submitted that the amount of award of land acquisition is withdrawn from the bank and no entry is made in the cashbook. As per the court witness i.e Mamlatdar, Paddhari, all the entries are required to be made in general cashbook and, therefore, amount withdrawn by self cheques No. 19738 dated 12.02.1988 (Rs. 21,027/-) and No. 19739 dated 14.12.1988 (Rs. 1,79,543.58/-) is not mentioned/entered in general cashbook. She has further submitted that the court witness also states in reply to question no. 9 that the amount withdrawn is to be deposited under R.D Head by passing order and withdrawn amount is to be paid through challan on which there should be signature of Mamlatdar or any officer designated by him. She has further submitted that the court witness also states in reply to question no. 11 that upon verification of record, no order is passed for withdrawal of amount. The court witness also states in reply to question no. 12 that upon verification frora concerned authority, on date wise statement from 1986 to 1990, no amount is deposited under revenue head.
6.3 In light of factual submissions, she has further Page 20 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined submitted that with regard to documents, Rojmel, Taluka Form No. 17 and Cashbook Herapheri register are not available and therefore, the same are not supplied to the petitioner and that the entire record is submitted by way of letter dated 20.07.2019 before this Hon'ble Court. Further, with regard to examination of Shri Doshi as witness by the petitioner is concern, it is submitted that it is responsibility of petitioner to produce Shri Doshi, if he wants to examine him as a witness and that the petitioner could not produce him. However, the petitioner gave two addresses of Shri Doshi and that Shri Doshi was not available on the said addresses and therefore, notices issued to Shri Doshi have returned back as unserved. She has further submitted that the petitioner has not shown as to how and in what manner the availability of said documents would have helped the case of petitioner and that absence of such documents considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it will not prejudice the petitioner as the petitioner has not made any entry in the cashbook which was required. With regard to examination of Shri Doshi also, the petitioner has not stated as to how and in what manner the examinations of Shri Doshi would have helped the Page 21 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined petitioner. Further, the petitioner has failed to show as to how prejudice is caused due to non-availability/non- supply of documents and non-examination of Shri Doshi due to his non-availability. The petitioner has failed to lay any foundation to establish that any prejudice has been caused by non-supply of documents which are not available with the authority. She has further submitted that by order dated 29.07.2004 passed by this Hon'ble Court in SCA No.9500 of 2003, the petition preferred by A.A.Doshi against the order dated 28.01.2003 removing him from service came to be dismissed. She has further submitted that the charges are proved and punishment is imposed on the basis of statement of witnesses & documentary evidences. She has further submitted that with regard to the contention of petitioner on non speaking punishment order, it is submitted that the punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the enquiry officer which means that the punishing authority has not only agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by the enquiry officer for the findings and that when punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and accepts the reasons given by the Page 22 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined enquiry officer in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the enquiry officer and give the same reasons for the findings and therefore, the punishment order dated 15.10.2007 is a reasoned order. As per GCSR (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, only in case of disagreement an elaborated reasoned order is required to be issued after according opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In instant case, it is not the case of non-grant of opportunity of hearing nor is the case of disagreement of punishing authority to the inquiry authority. She has further submitted that with regard to contention of the petitioner on proportionality of punishment, it is submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave with regard to misappropriation of funds and the nature of work demands vigilance with in-built requirement to act carefully as per the required procedure in case of handling the amount of land acquisition award and making payment of same to the landholder and therefore, punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate against such serious and grave Page 23 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined charges. She has further submitted that with regard to the contention of the petitioner on parity of punishment with the Dy. Mamlatdar, it is submitted that punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends on various factors, like the position of the employee, role attributed and nature of allegations. Therefore, in present case, the petitioner cannot claim parity in punishment imposed upon him with the Dy. Mamlatdar. She has further submitted that with regards to the contention raised by the petitioner on aspect of delay is concerned, it is submitted that in judgment dated 25.10.2004 passed in SCA No. 2985 of 2003, in paragraph No. 6. arguments of petitioner with regard to delay in initiation of inquiry is recorded. However, the Hon'ble Court only remanded the matter for limited purpose from the stage of supplying additional documents and permitting examination of Shri Doshi and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to again raise grievance on delay in initiation of inquiry. Further, in order dated 25.06.2001 passed in SCA No.7889 of 2000, argument of petitioner is recorded stating that enquiry may be expeditiously concluded. Also, the petitioner has not stated as to how the delay has caused prejudice to Page 24 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the petitioner. She has further submitted that with regard to the contention raised by the petitioner on the GPSC opinion is concerned, it is submitted that there is no change in the punishment imposed on the petitioner and is same as earlier imposed and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Further, the State Government through General Administrative Department issued resolution dated 31.03.2015 referring to Rule No. 10 (4), 12 and 26 GCSR (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1971 & judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.03.2011 in case of S. K. Kapoor (supra), which is after punishment order dated 15.10.2007 and the same cannot be applied retrospectively. She has further submitted that with regard to contention of petitioner on changing inquiry officer and reliance placed on file notings, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot allege mala fides on the final decision taken by the government and the burden of proof is on petitioner to prove mala fide on basis of some evidence.
6.4 In support of his submissions, she has relied upon the following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Gujarat High Court, which reads as under: Page 25 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
(i) Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55944, more particularly, paragraph 13 to 20 are relevant
(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Jha reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67679, more particularly, paragraph 13 is relevant.
(iii) Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India (Through General Manager, Eastern Railways) reported in 1987 (0) AIJEL-SC 4874, more particularly, paragraphs 4, 9 and 10 are relevant.
(iv) Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (0) AIJEL-SC 48018, more particularly, paragraphs 30 to 33 are relevant.
(v) Om Prakash Mann Vs. Director of Education (Basic) reported in 2006 (0) AIJEL-SC 37738, more particularly, paragraph 8 is relevant.
(vi) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987 (0) AIJEL-SC 23123, more particularly, paragraph 8 is relevant.
Page 26 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
(vii) Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Vs. Union of India reported in 1991 (0) AIJEL-SC 11756, more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant.
(viii) Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 66992, more particularly, paragraph 7 is relevant.
(ix) Union of India and Other Vs. Const Sunil Kumar reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70303, more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant.
(x) Divisional Controller, KSRTC (Nwkrtc) Vs. A.T. Mane reported in 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC 8216, more particularly, paragraphs 8 to 13 are relevant.
(xi) Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Director General, SSB, more particularly, paragraphs 8 to 11 are relevant.
(xii) Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty reported in 1996 (0) AIJEL-SC 20170, more particularly, paragraph 6 is relevant.
(xiii) Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Page 27 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Corporation reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 236946, more particularly, paragraph 16 to 21 are relevant.
(xiv) Special Civil Application No.5681 of 2020, more particularly, paragraph 5.4 to 5.6 are relevant. 6.5 In view of the above, she has prayed to dismiss this petition.
ANALYSIS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the materials available on the record as well as pleadings of the parties like memo of the petition, affidavit-in-reply and rejoinder affidavit, etc. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner revolving around the aspect of the propriety of the departmental proceeding as well as the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the Authorities as well as discrimination in awarding punishment to the employees, who are similarly situation. It is not in question that petitioner has joined the service as Deputy Mamlatdar in the year 1981. Thereafter, pursuant to selection process by GPSC, petitioner was appointed as direct recruitment Page 28 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined as Mamlatdar in the year 1986. Thereafter, in the year 1992, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector. On 14.07.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged irregularity for his posting as Mamlatdar Padadhri. On 10.8.2000, departmental charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner. On 28.01.2003, punishment of removal from service came to be imposed upon to the petitioner after departmental inquiry. On 25.10.2004, the petitioner challenged the said punishment order by filing Special Civil Application No. 2985 of 2003 and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority from the stage of supplying the necessary and relevant documents and permitting examination of Shri A.A.Doshi as the defense witness. Thereafter, on 20.7.2005, the petitioner requested for the following necessary and relevant documents such as Day Book of the year 1998, Taluka Form No. 17 and Movement Register of cash book. On 04.08.2005, the petitioner was provided the Day Book upto 30.06.1986, and Taluka Form No. 17 and it was informed to the petitioner that movement register is destroyed and, therefore, the copies of the same could not be supplied to the petitioner by the Authority. The petitioner has requested for Page 29 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined examination of Shri A.A.Doshi as defence witness, it was found that he was not available at the given address and therefore he could not be examined. 7.2 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in this background, since Shri A.A.Doshi was the co-delinquent and a joint departmental inquiry was conducted against three officers including Shri A.A. Doshi, the petitioner wanted to examine him from the beginning, however, at the relevant point of time, though Shri Doshi was available during the course of inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer did not permit examination of Shri Doshi. Thereafter, due to passage of time, Mr. Doshi was not available and he could not be examined. Therefore, this has resulted into serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner, for which the petitioner cannot be faulted. He has also submitted by referring to the various judgments as mentioned above, whereby in view of the impugned order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the respondent- Authority, none of the contentions the raised by the petitioner have been taken into consideration and therefore, absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned order, Page 30 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. By relying on the judgment in the case of Union Of India & Ors (supra), he has submitted that even the advice of the GPSC, which is taken into consideration by the respondent authority while imposing punishment, is provided to the petitioner along with the punishment order. Therefore, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to make representation against the advise of the GPSC resulting into gross violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, his contentions are that the present petition is required to be allowed as there is grave injustice caused to the present petitioner, which is required to be now considered in view of the response received from the learned advocate for the respondent. 7.3 Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State has submitted that scope of judicial review in case of reasoned decision of disciplinary authority is narrow and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would not interfere with the findings or the decision of the disciplinary authority unless it is shockingly disproportionate and hits the conscience of the Court. Page 31 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined She has further submitted that while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court, the High Court would not re-appreciate the evidences thereby leading to interference in factual findings of the disciplinary authority. He has contended that non-supply of the GPSC opinion wherein either the punishment is upheld or is not enhanced, would not lead to adversarial orders or violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, decisions in the case of S. K. Kapoor (supra) and S. Narula (supra) are not applicable in instant case. She has by referring to the dates and events has submitted that the punishment order dated 15.07.2007 and inquiry report dated 05.12.2005 is required to be seen in context of the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. She has further submitted that from the record, it is found that amount of award of Rs. 1,79,543.58/- of land acquisition withdrawn by self cheque and no entry was made in cashbook nor paid to the land holder. The amount of compensation of Rs. 21,027/- approved in name of Jivtiben Kadabhai & others and that the amount was not accepted in light of dispute of heirship. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition by letter dated 18.12.1985 & 21.08.1986 was sent to petitioner to deposit Page 32 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined under revenue head. Instead, the petitioner deposited in savings account. She has further referred that the petitioner has put signatures on both the self cheques and designated Shri Doshi for withdrawal of same. The petitioner has accepted in front of inquiry officer that in both the transactions, the signature is made by petitioner in the cheques. It is also contended that proper opportunity is given to the present petitioner and from the inquiry, it is found that the petitioner has not deposited certain amount and has also withdrawn certain amount received towards payment of compensation towards land acquisition and land owner is not paid by the petitioner and, therefore, it transpires from the record the petitioner and Shri Doshi have conspired for such misappropriation. It also transpires from the record that the petitioner has not made necessary entry in the cashbook at the relevant point of time though the amount has been withdrawn by cash from the bank account. Therefore, referring to the judgments cited at the bar, it is contended that the scope of judicial review is very limited and the Court should not interfere with the findings.
Page 33 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 7.4 I have considered the abovementioned contentions raised by the respective parties in substance for appreciating the case of the parties. From the record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not given proper opportunity to represent his case. On the contrary from the materials availability on the record, it indicates that proper opportunity is afforded, however, some of the documents, which are destroyed, could not be provided to the petitioner. That itself is not a good ground to say that the inquiry is vitiated on this count. Moreover, considering the aspect of non-examination of the co- delinquent Mr. Doshi, it is the duty of the petitioner to find out such defence witnesses and produce him before the inquiry officer, but though the earlier co-delinquent was appeared before the inquiry officer and after remanding back the matter to the inquiry office by the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner is not able to produce said co-delinquent Mr. Doshi for necessary examination. That cannot be the ground on which any inference can be drawn in favour of the petitioner and it is the duty of the petitioner to prove his case by producing necessary witness or necessary documents, if he wanted to do so. In the present case, he failed to produce any Page 34 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined witnesses. Therefore, it also transpires that though the other person, who is also found guilty for the said misappropriation was awarded lesser punishment, but considering the role of the petitioner, who is healm of the affairs of that particular office as highest officer, and who has signed the concerned cheques, and amount is withdrawn pursuant to the said cheques, which are signed by mentioned self-cheques. The entries of such amount is not found in cash-book and the amount is also not paid to the land owner, which is required to be paid towards the amount of compensation for land acquisition. It clearly established from the record that the petitioner has played major role and looking to the role, the punishment is awarded, which cannot be considered as disproportionate or it cannot also be viewed as discriminatory looking to the difference in the role played by the co-delinquent and the present petitioner. Therefore, the judgments are cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners are not helpful to the facts of the present case.
7.5 It is fruitful to refer the judgments cited at the bar by learned advocate for the respondent. Page 35 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
(i) P. Gunasekaran (supra), more particularly, paragraph 13 to 20 are relevant, as under:
"13. 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;Page 36 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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.
14. 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.Page 37 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
(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.
15. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao[1], many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it 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. 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 in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings Page 38 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be 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 of the Constitution."
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao[2], the principles have been further discussed at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as follows:
"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. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against Page 39 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined him, the rule followed in criminal trials that[pic]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 Page 40 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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. The departmental authorities are, if the 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.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing the Union of India, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh said that the High Court does not interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut- down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did Page 41 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.[pic]
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 Page 42 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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.
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."
17. These principles have been succinctly summed-up by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh[3]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions: Page 43 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined "4. .... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.
For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ..."
18. In all the subsequent decisions of this Court upto the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu[4], these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything.
19. On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while Page 44 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings:
"Article-I was held as proved by the Inquiry authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P. Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus to the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was handicapped in producing his defence witness. ..."
20. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India."
(ii) Akhilesh Jha (supra), more particularly, paragraph 13 Page 45 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined is relevant, as under:
"13 On the basis of the above material which has been placed on the record, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the charge against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations, contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal declined to quash the charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28 July 2016. However, by a subsequent order dated 5 January 2018, it proceeded to do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been caused to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity for deputation or for promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings. The line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety. This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be Page 46 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, in our view, has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court."
(iii) Chandrama Tewari (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 4, 9 and 10 are relevant, as under:
"4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any merit in the appellant's submissions to justify interference with the High Court's judgment. Article 311 of the Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishment of dismissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the Rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice Page 47 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence. If findings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded would contravene principles of natural justice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment illegal and void. These principles are well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. We need not refer to them. However, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order. If the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised. The violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document, copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him. On a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of Page 48 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined documents is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the non- supply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer.
9. It is now well settled that if copies of relevant and material documents including the statement of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry or during investigation are not supplied to the delinquent officer facing the enquiry and if such documents are relied in holding the charges proved against the officer, the enquiry would be vitiated for the violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, if the statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of a criminal case or in the preliminary enquiry is not supplied to the delinquent officer, as that would amount to denial of opportunity of effective cross- examination. It is difficult to comprehend exhaustively the facts and circumstances which may lead to violation of principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity of defence. This question must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. While considering this question it has to be borne in mind that a delinquent officer is entitled to have copies of material and relevant documents only which may include the copy of statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation or preliminary enquiry or the copy of any other document which may have been relied in support of the charges. If a document has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied by the enquiry officer to support the charges, or if such document or Page 49 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined material was not necessary for the cross-examination of witnesses during the enquiry, the officer cannot insist upon the supply of copies of such documents, as the absence of copy of such document will not prejudice the delinquent officer. The decision of the question whether a document is material or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the instant case there is no denying the fact that a copy of paper No. 5 as mentioned in the charge sheet was not supplied to the appellant and he was not permitted to inspect the same. It appears that paper No. 5 was the report submitted by the Special Police Establishment in respect of the criminal case of theft of coal, in which final report had been submitted. After submission of final report in the criminal case disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant. Paper No. 5 (the report) was, however, not considered or relied by the enquiry officer in recording findings against the appellant. We have perused the copy of the report of the enquiry officer furnished to the Court by the appellant but we do not find any reference to paper No. 5 therein. The enquiry officer has not either referred to nor relied upon that report in recording findings on the charges framed against the appellant. In this view the report (paper No. 5) was not a material or relevant document and denial of copy of that document could not and did not prejudice the appellant and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant's grievance that in the absence of report he could not effectively cross-examine Shri A.C. Das, Dy. S.P. Of Page 50 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Special Police Establishment, the investigating officer, is not sustainable. A copy of the statement as recorded by the enquiry officer has been placed before us by the appellant on a perusal of the same we find that Shri A.C. Das, was cross-examined at length in detail. His examination-in-chief is confined to one page while his cross-examination runs into six full scape typed pages. The appellant has failed to point out as to how he was prejudiced. In our opinion the appellant was not handicapped in cross-examining Shri A.C. Das, his grievance that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of defence is without any merit."
(iv) Manoj Kumar Sinha (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 30 to 33 are relevant, as under:
"30. Thereafter, this Court notices the development of the principle that prejudice must be proved and not presumed even in cases where procedural requirements have not been complied with. The Court notices a number of judgments in which the action has not been held ipso facto illegal, unlawful or void unless it is shown that non-observance had prejudicially affected the applicant. Ultimately, it is concluded as follows:
44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent, employee has to show "prejudice". Unless he is able to Page 51 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.
31. We have examined the factual situation in this case elaborately to see as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the respondent. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent that any prejudice has been actually caused. We are of the considered opinion that there has been no failure of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case by non-supply of the enquiry report to the respondent.
32. We are also of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the respondent cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent. The charges related to the conduct of the respondent in a financial institution whereby taking advantage of the official position he attempted to procure unlawful pecuniary benefits for himself. The charges related to misappropriation, fraud and irregularities with regard to the maintenance of accounts. He had been siphoning off money belonging to the account holders. He was holding a position of trust in the Bank, which he betrayed. We are of the opinion that the Chairman has correctly observed at the personal hearing given to the respondent that the Bank has already been sympathetic and lenient enough.
33. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of Page 52 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed."
(v) Om Prakash Mann (supra), more particularly, paragraph 8 is relevant, as under:
"8. By now it is well settled principle of law that doctrines of principle of natural justice are not embodied Rule. It cannot be applied in the straight jacket formula. To sustain the complaint of violation of the principle of natural justice one must establish that he has been prejudiced by non-observance of principle of natural justice. As held by the High Court the appellant has not been able to show as to how he has been prejudiced by non- furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report. The appellant has filed a detail appeal before Appellate Authority which was dismissed as noticed above. It is not his case that he has been deprived of making effective appeal for non- furnishing of copy of enquiry report. He has participated in the enquiry proceedings without any demur. It is undisputed that the appellant has been afforded enough opportunity and he has participated throughout the enquiry proceedings, he has been heard and allowed to make submission before the enquiry Committee."
(vi) Ram Kumar (supra), more particularly, paragraph 8 is relevant, as under:
Page 53 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined "8. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is difficult to say that the punishing authority had not ap-
plied his mind to the case before terminating the services of the appellant. The punishing authority has placed reli- ance upon the report of the Enquiry Officer which means that he has not only agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion, when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the En- quiry Officer and give the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of termination is vitiated as it is a non-speaking order and does not contain any reason. When by the impugned order the punishing authority has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reason given by him, the question of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking order."
(vii) Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant, as under:
"6 So far as the second point is concerned, it has been Page 54 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined brought to our notice that the Enquiry Officer's report was accepted by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Board of the Institute. This was at its meeting held on 10.02.1982. Thereafter, a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was sent to the respondent and he was asked to show cause why a penalty of removal filed by the respondent, an order was passed on 2.09.1982 in which it was stated that the Board, after of removal from service should not be imposed on him. After considering the reply considering the report at its meeting held on 2.08.1982 and the reply of the respondent to the show cause notice, arrived at the conclusion that there was no reason to alter the decision already taken regarding the penalty proposed to be imposed on the respondent. The High court has taken the view that the Board should have passed a reasoned order. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that more detailed reasons were not necessary. The High court has referred, in its judgment, to the decision of this court in Ram Kumar V/s. State of Haryana pointing out that when by an impugned order the punishing authority has accepted a the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss the evidence, reiterate the same findings and give the reasons for the findings. In our opinion, the principle of this decision will apply to the facts of this case particularly as the issue before the Board was a very short one as to whether the writing of certain letters by the respondent, which he admitted, constituted misconduct or not.Page 55 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
7. On behalf of the respondent, reference has been made to a decision of this court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna. In that case, dealing with the disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, this court observed towards the end of its judgment that the reasons of the council for finding a member of the profession to be guilty of misconduct should have been set out in the order of the council. This decision was arrived at in the context of the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 whereunder the disciplinary authority is the council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the disciplinary committee plays a subordinate role in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary committee were only tentative and could not be regarded as findings. It was only the finding of the council which was the determinative decision as to the guilt of the member and the Act required that such finding must be recorded. In the context of those provisions, it was held that it was desirable that the council should give reasons for its findings that a member was guilty of misconduct. But this is not a general requirement to be insisted upon in all cases, as pointed out in Ram Kumar case. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Board of Institute cannot be faulted for not giving detailed reasons particularly when it was made quite clear that the Board accepted the findings as well as the punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer."Page 56 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
(viii) Boloram Bordoloi (supra), more particularly, paragraph 7 is relevant, as under:
"7. The appellant was working as a Manager of the respondentbank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, reveal that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business;
(b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. The Enquiry Officer, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved. Based on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted his comments vide letter dated 16.08.2005 indicating that due to work pressure some operational lapses have occurred. Further he has also pleaded that if the bank has sustained any loss due to his fault, he is ready to bear such loss from his own source.
After filing the response to the show cause notice, order is passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the delinquent employee by enclosing a copy Page 57 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined of the enquiry report. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is held that delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent- bank. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in Ref.
Page 58 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/200506. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons."
(ix) Const. Sunil Kumar (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant, as under:
"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal after holding the departmental enquiry and after following the due procedure as required under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and after having held the charges and misconduct proved. The charges and misconduct held to be proved against the respondent who was serving in CRPF - a disciplined force can be said to be a grave and serious misconduct. The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent is of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, may be under the influence of intoxication. He also misbehaved and gave threats to the colleagues. The misconduct committed by the respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF and therefore, as such the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in observing that on the proved charges and misconduct penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate.Page 59 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 6.1 While holding that the penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, what is weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court is that as the respondent was found to be in a state of intoxication when not on duty and considering Section 10, he is deemed to have committed a less heinous offence. Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra), it is observed that even in a case when a CRPF personnel was awarded imprisonment under Section 10(n) for an offence which though less heinous, he can be dismissed from service, if it is found to be prejudicial to good order and discipline of CRPF. Under the circumstances, the reasoning given by the High Court that as the respondent is deemed to have committed a less heinous offence, the order of penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate is not required to be accepted.
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 Page 60 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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.
6.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High 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.Page 61 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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. As observed hereinabove as the order of penalty/punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate, there is no question of remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal and reinstating the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. No costs."
(x) A.T. Mane (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 8 to 13 are relevant, as under:
Page 62 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined "8. The fact the respondent was carrying Rs.93/- in excess of the amount is a fact proved. This itself is a misconduct over and above that the courts below ought not to have insisted on examination of the passengers. Since the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount, this omission also is was sufficient to hold the respondent guilty.
9. This Court in the case of State of Haryana & Anr.
vs. Rattan Singh { (1977) 2 SCC 491 which is also a case arising out of non-issuance of ticket by a conductor held thus:-
"In a domestic enquiry all the strict and sophisticated rules of Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, though departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act. The essence of judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations, and observance of rules of natural justice. Fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment, vitiate the conclusion reached, such a finding, even of a domestic tribunal , cannot be held to be good. The simple point in all these cases is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -- not in the sense of the technical rules Page 63 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined governing Court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny by court, while absence of any evidence in support of the finding is an error of law apparent on the record and the court can interfere with the finding. In the present case , evidence of the inspector is some evidence which has relevance to the charge and the courts below had misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of ticketless passengers. Also merely because the statements were not recorded, the order for termination cannot be invalid. In fact, the inspector tried to get their statements but the passengers declined. Further , it was not for the court but the tribunal to assess the evidence of the conductor."
10. From the above it is clear once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless passengers to reject the said finding which, in our opinion, as held by this Court in the case of Rattan Singh (supra) Page 64 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined is not a condition precedent. We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh's (supra) has since been followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation { (2002) 9 SCC 644}.
11. Since the only ground on which the finding of the domestic tribunal has been set aside being the ground that concerned passengers are not examined or their statement were not recorded, in spite of there being other material to establish the misconduct of the respondent, we are of the opinion, the courts below have erred in allowing the claim of the respondent. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above case of Rattan Singh (supra) applies squarely to the facts of this case.
12. In the instant case also there is the evidence of the inspector who conducted the checking which establishes the misconduct of the respondent based on which a finding was given that the respondent was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Based on the said finding, the disciplinary authority has punished the respondent by an order of dismissal. But the Labour Court, and the learned single Judge rejected the said finding and set aside the punishment imposed solely on the ground that the evidence of the passengers concerned was not adduced and their statements were not recorded by the inspector which as stated in the Rattan Singh's case is not a condition precedent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the courts below have erred in interfering with the finding of fact on Page 65 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined an erroneous basis.
13. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal."
(xi) Anil Kumar Upadhyay (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 8 to 11 are relevant, as under:
"8. On the judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality, few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to:
(i) In the case of Om Kumar (supra), this Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-Page 66 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined known principles known as 'Wednesbury principles'. In the Wednesbury case, (1948) 1 KB 223, it was observed that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken.
ii) In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), in paragraph 18, this Court observed and held as under:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Page 67 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
iii) In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra), in paragraph 19, it is observed and held as under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.Page 68 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co- delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
9. In the present case, the appellant was imposed the penalty of 'removal from service' after the charges levelled against him stood proved by the disciplinary authority in an enquiry held against him after following the procedure Page 69 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined prescribed under the SSB Rules. The nature of allegations against the appellant are grave in nature. He entered the Mahila Barrack in the midnight at around 00:15 hours, may be to meet his alleged friend Rupasi Barman, but such an indisciplined conduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack cannot be tolerated. As a member of the disciplined force - SSB, he was expected to follow the rules. He was apprehended inside the Mahila Barrack by six female constables. As observed by this Court in the case of Diler Singh (supra), a member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in a fancy. The nature of misconduct which has been committed by the appellant stands proved and is unpardonable. Therefore, when the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to punish him with the penalty of 'removal from service', which is confirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter it was not open for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
10. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been interfered with by the Division Bench, it appears that what weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the female constable - Rupasi Barman, who allowed the entry of the delinquent and who was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was found guilty of both the charges, was inflicted with a lesser punishment and therefore punishment of 'removal Page 70 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined from service' imposed on the delinquent official was disproportionate. However, the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the misconduct committed by the delinquent official, being a male Head Constable cannot be equated with the misconduct committed by the female constable. The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is more serious when committed by a male Head Constable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in comparing the case of female constable with that of the appellant - delinquent, male Head Constable.
11. Even otherwise, merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely justified in interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service. If the conduct on the part of the appellant entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is approved, in that case, it would lead to Page 71 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment/penalty of 'removal from service' by modifying the earlier punishment of dismissal. The same cannot be said to be disproportionate at all to the misconduct held to be proved against the appellant - delinquent."
(xii) Ananda Chandra Prusty (supra), more particularly, paragraph 6 is relevant, as under:
"6. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us hereinabove viz., that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of proof, always lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry. The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanatian. For example take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondent's case was that those notings were based upon certain documents produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that Page 72 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings made by the respondent."
(xiii) Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 236946, more particularly, paragraph 16 to 21 are relevant, as under:
"16 So far as the other contentions raised on behalf of the writ applicant are concerned, they are all in the realm of appreciation of evidence. After due consideration of the report of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority thought fit to order dismissal of the writ applicant from service. As an Administrative Officer, the writ applicant was expected to exercise higher standard of honesty and integrity. The writ applicant was obliged to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Corporation and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence.
17. It is now well settled by a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court that in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not venture into the reappreciation of evidence or interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry proceedings, if the same are conducted in accordance with law or go into the reliability / adequacy of evidence, or Page 73 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined HC-NIC Page 22 of 29 Created On Fri Jan 13 00:45:59 IST 2017 interfere, if there is some legal evidence on which the findings are based, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.
18. It is equally well settled that the High Courts in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 can only consider whether the inquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with the procedure established by law, and the principles of natural justice, whether irrelevant or extraneous consideration and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence being influenced the decision rendering it vulnerable.
19. This Court may interfere if the finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious based on no evidence which no reasonable person could have ever arrived at.
20. In State Bank of India and others vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey [(2013) 2 SCC 740], the Supreme Court, in paras 25 and 26, observed as under:
"25. The High Court, in our view, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by Page 74 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the appointing authority after a fullfledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. It is a well acceptable principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Of course, its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. In State Bank of India and others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 : (2006 AIR SCW 5457), this Court held that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence acting as a court of Appeal. We have, on facts, found that no procedural irregularity has been committed either by the Bank, presenting officer or the Inquiring Authority.
Disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Service Rules.
26. This court in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 held:
"7...Where there is some evidence, which
the authority entrusted HC-NIC Page 23 of 29
Created On Fri Jan 13 00:45:59 IST 2017 with the duty to hold the inquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the Page 75 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined conclusion that delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence especially when the charged officer had not participated in the inquiry and had not raised the grounds urged by him before the High Court by the Inquiring Authority."
21 In a very recent pronouncement in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [2015(2) SCC 610], the Supreme Court in details has explained the position of law so far as the scope of interference in the matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings is concerned. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court from paras 12 to 20 as under:
"12. Despite the wellsettled 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. 1 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 Page 76 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation 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
Page 77 of 93
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
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). reappreciate 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.
14. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao1, many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus: Page 78 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined "7. .....The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it 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. 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 in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly 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 Page 79 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be 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 of the Constitution."
15 In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], the principles have been further discussed at paragraphs21 to 24, which read as follows:
"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). 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 Page 80 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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 Page 81 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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. The departmental authorities are, if the 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.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing the Union of India, New Delhi v.
Niranjan Singh (AIR 1969 SC 966) said that the
High Court does not interfere with the
conclusion of the disciplinary authority
unless the finding is not supported by any
HC-NIC Page 26 of 29 Created On Fri Jan 13 00:45:59 IST 2017 evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shutdown of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led Page 82 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.
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 Page 83 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 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).
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 Page 84 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do."
16 These principles have been succinctly summedup by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:
"4. ...... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply.
All materials which are logically
probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through caselaw and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, Page 85 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ....."
17 In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (AIR 2014 SC 1141), these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything. 18 On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings:
"ArticleI was held as proved by
the Inquiry authority after evaluating the
evidence adduced in the case. Under
the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied
on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P.
Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus to
the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left Page 86 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was HC-NIC Page 28 of 29 Created On Fri Jan 13 00:45:59 IST 2017 handicapped in producing his defence witness. ...." 19 The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20 Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, Page 87 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
(xiv) Special Civil Application No.5681 of 2020, more particularly, paragraph 5.4 to 5.6 are relevant, as under:
"5.4 In the case of M.Duraisamy (supra), it is observed in paragraph 9 as under:
"9. Merely because the respondent-employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. Therefore, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed Page 88 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined by the Disciplinary Authority."
5.5 In the case of Ajit Kumar Singh & Ors., (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 6 as under:
"6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of chargesheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.1 have already been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage. This was even found by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment inflicted upon him. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review. The views expressed by this Court on the scope of judicial review in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, are extracted below:
"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.Page 89 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined The 1 (2021) 2 SCC 612 court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.
If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25-27 xx xx xx
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity Page 90 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) Similar view was expressed in the later judgment of this Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors."
5.6 Considering the above decisions, this Court would not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings as there is no malafide or perversity found in the same. The punishment imposed of stoppage of three increments with future effect is one of the minor penalties prescribed and looking to the gravity of misconduct of accepting bribe by a public servant, which is proved against the petitioner, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate and is not required to be interfered with by this Court." The aforesaid judgments are supporting the case of the respondent to the certain extent.
7.6 Therefore, considering the fact that there is no shocking as the impugned order is passed after following necessary procedure by the Authority by giving proper Page 91 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order passed by the Authorities cannot said that it is not in accordance with law. I am of the view that the petition lacks merit. Moreover, it is relevant to refer that the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. M. Duraisamy reported in 2022 (7) SCC 475 as well as case of The India Oil Corporation and Others vs. Ajit Kumar Singh reported in 2023 (8) Scale 785 are squarely applicable to the fact of the present case. Considering the above judgments cited at the bar, more particularly, by the respondent, I am of the opinion that this Court should not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceeding as there is no mala fide or perversity found. Looking to the gravity of the misconduct of the public servant like present petition, which is proved in the departmental inquiry in appropriate manner, the punishment imposed by the Authority cannot be said to be disproportionate and is not required to be interfered with by this Court.
CONCLUSION:
7.7 In view of the above discussion, this Court does not Page 92 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7592/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and neither there is any violation of the Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore this petition is required to be dismissed.
Accordingly, dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 93 of 93 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:58:51 IST 2025