Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2013 (ALL)

LAL BAHADUR YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-09-22

ANJANI KUMAR, S.RAFAT ALAM

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is intra Court appeal, under the rules of the Court, arising from the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 13.1.1997 dismissing the appellant’s Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13634 of 1990. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record. 3. It appears that the appellant was proceeded departmentally under Section 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 for the alleged misconduct and remissness in the discharge of his duties in capacity as member of force. It has been alleged that he tampered with the kilometer reading, assembly of vehicle registration No. DBL 5604 illegally, obtained signatures of the indentors on blank indent car diary thereby entering excessive mileage in the car diary and also misappropriated a large quantity of diesel for personal gains. In the departmental proceeding the charges or the basis of evidence were proved. The Commandant, who was the disciplinary authority, accepted the report and inflicted punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 17.4.1989 by a reasoned order. 4. The aggrieved appellant then preferred statutory appeal against the order of dismissal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the went in revision which was also dismissed. Hence, writ petition was filed, which is also dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge by a detailed order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was no sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the charges against the appellant. He further submits that the witness examined in support of the charges, has only stated that he used to sign on blank indent and thus, it does not prove the charge against the appellant. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that one of the charge against him is obtaining signature on a blank indent and, therefore, it is wrong to contend that this does not prove the charge rather the said statement by the witness proved the charge against the appellant. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that one of the charge against him is obtaining signature on a blank indent and, therefore, it is wrong to contend that this does not prove the charge rather the said statement by the witness proved the charge against the appellant. The apart, it is well settled legal proposition that in the matter of departmental proceeding the procedure prescribed in the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable and the only requirement is that the evidence should be collected by giving opportunity to the delinquent employee as well and there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and another, AIR 2000 SC 22 the Apex Court while considering the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of departmental proceedings in para-16 of the judgment observed as under : “Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 8. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 8. In the case in hand, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear and categorical finding that the charges levelled against the appellant were fully proved and the said finding is based on relevant evidence on record. The disciplinary authority also having perused the evidence on record, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charges stand proved, hence inflicted punishment. The appellate and the revisional authorities have also found on the basis of evidence on record that the charges are proved. The Hon’ble Single Judge also having heard the parties and having perused the record, found that the findings recorded by the authorities below are based on the relevant evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be vitiated by error of law or jurisdiction, hence dismissed the writ petition. 9. In the case of Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, 2002 (7) SCC 142 , the Apex Court, while considering the challenge of punishment on the ground of lack of sufficiency of the evidence, explained that the expression sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him and it is not the adequacy of the evidence. 10. Besides that it is well settled legal position that the scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental proceeding is limited and it is not an appeal in disguise. The Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, JT 2006 (2) SC 82 while considering the scope of judicial review observed as under : “By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error if any resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.” (Para-7) 11. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error if any resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.” (Para-7) 11. Thus, it confines to correct the errors of law or procedural error if resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. 12. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any procedural error in conducting the departmental proceeding. Admittedly, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner-appellant to participate and defend the charges in the proceeding. Thus, we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 13. No other point is urged before us. 14. The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed. ————