Service Law:
Compulsory Retirement – Punishment of – Imposed by departmental authority – Writ Petition – High Court reduced the punishment of compulsory retirement to reversion in rank for a period of 6 months – Directed reinstatement with 50% backwages – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.
Constitution of India:
Arts. 226 and 227 – Scope under – To interfere with disciplinary proceedings – Held: High court, in exercise of power u/Arts. 226 and 227 should not venture into appreciation of evidence – While exercising jurisdiction u/Art. 226, High Court is not a Court of appeal – Interference of High Court is limited to cases where proceedings are inconsistant with principles of natural justice, or where findings are based on no evidence or in violation of statutory rules or where authorities were actuated by some extraneous consideration or where the conclusion on the face of it was arbitrary and capricious.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however interfere where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed 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. If, however, the enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the 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 writ petition. The High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. [Para 12.1][1199G-H; 1200-A-C; 1202-D] State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 : [1964] 3 SCR 25; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 : [ 1976] 1 SCR 521; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [ 1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; Director General RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331 : [ 2003] 1 SCR 729; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali (2014) 4 SCC 108 : [2014] 1 SCR 987; Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha (2011) 11 SCC 535 : [2011] 3 SCR 272; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh 2020 AIR 5455; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 : [2014]
13 SCR 1312; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 : [2000]
4 Suppl. SCR 693; Coimbatore District Central Co-op Bank v. Employees Association (2007) 4 SCC 669 : [2007] 5 SCR 430; Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri (2009)
15 SCC 620 : [2009] 13 SCR 487; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014)
4 SCC 108 : [2014] 1 SCR 987 – relied on.
1.2 In the present case, there is no allegation of malafides against the disciplinary authority or lack of competence of the disciplinary authority in passing the order of compulsory retirement, or of a breach of the principles of natural justice, or that the findings were based on no evidence. [Para 12.2][1203D-E]
1.3 The various allegations made against the respondent arise out of gross neglect of duty with respect to theft of railway property. The findings of gross neglect of duty under charges 1(b) and (c) have been concurrently upheld. The findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are based on materials on record. The High Court was not justified in reappraising the entire evidence threadbare as a court of first appeal, and substituting the order of punishment, by a lesser punishment, without justifiable reason. [Para 12.5][1205-D-E]
2. Section 11 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 provides that it shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the force to protect and safeguard railway property and passengers. A police officer in the Railway Protection Force is required to maintain a high standard of integrity in the discharge of his official functions. In the present case, the charges proved against the respondent “were of neglect of duty” which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Railways. The Respondent was a SubInspector in the Railway Police discharging an office of trust and confidence which required absolute integrity. The High Court was therefore not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, and directing re-instatement with consequential benefits, and payment of backwages to the extent of 50%. [Para 12.6][1205-F-H; 1206-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.