Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999
18 Thus, so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion
arrived at by the departmental authority and accepted by the appellate
authority, the same has to be sustained. In the case of Bank of India vs.
Degala Suryanarayan [2001 (1) SLJ 113 (SC)], the Supreme Court
Page 11 of 17
HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015
C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT
held
"Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry
proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the
delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which
a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a
finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent
officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even
in departmental enquiry proceedings. The Court exercising the jurisdiction
of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in
the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting 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 could
have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon
reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate
authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion
arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
19 In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC
484], the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for judicial
review in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against
the order of the disciplinary authority. "Judicial review is not an appeal
from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is
made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an
inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held
by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied
with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence,
the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
Page 12 of 17
HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015
C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is
entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate
authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own
independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere
where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer
in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of 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, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of that case".
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
V. S. Menon vs Union Of India on 22 November, 1962
21.3 Thus, from the above, it appears that what was being considered
by the Supreme Court was the effect and the applicability of a particular
rule. Interpreting the words "subversive activities" as contained in the
Rules, the Supreme Court held that taking interest in political activities
of the communist party would not amount to taking part in subversive
activities. The Court further held that subversive activities, in order to
bring the person within the purview of the rule, must amount to actively
pursuing such activities as are calculated to subvert the government
establishment by law. The Supreme Court observed that there were no
such allegations against the appellant.
1