Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.36 seconds)State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
In the case of State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao2 , a three
Judge Bench of this Court held:
State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952
10. The aforesaid decisions were noticed by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madras vs. G.
Sundatram3, and it has been held that it is not open to the High
Court to re-appreciate the evidence before the Tribunal and record
the conclusion that the evidence does not establish charges against
the delinquent. In the words of the Constitution Bench:
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
"9. It is therefore clear that the High Court was not competent to
consider the question whether the evidence before the Tribunal and
the Government was insufficient or unreliable to establish the
charge against the respondent. It could have considered only the
fact whether there was any evidence at all which, if believed by the
Tribunal, would establish the charge against the respondent.
Adequacy of that evidence to sustain the charge is not a question
3
AIR 1965 SC 1103
7
before the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. This view was reiterated in Union of India v.
H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Chitra Venkata Rao on 29 August, 1975
11. The scope of judicial review in dealing with
departmental enquiries came up for consideration before this Court
in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs. Chitra Ventaka
Rao4 and this Court held:
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a
supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate
court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as
a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent
on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of
fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in
recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to
admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned
finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that
would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a
writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot
be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate
to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on
a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed
Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna, AIR 1964 SC 477.