Muzaffar Husain vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional Court is not that of an appellate authority but is confined only to the decision-making process. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permissible only if the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or in contravention of statutory regulations regulating such proceedings or if the decision on the face of it is found to be arbitrary or capricious. The Courts would and should not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor should interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly conducted, and the findings are based on evidence, the adequacy of the evidence or reliability of evidence would not be a ground to interfere with the findings recorded in the departmental enquiries. [Para 8][952-B-D]

1.2 Regular disciplinary proceeding conducted against the appellant after serving him the chargesheet and giving him full opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Full Court of the High Court had resolved on 02.09.2006 to accept the said enquiry report and punish the appellant with curtailment of 90% of pensionary benefit with immediate effect. The order of punishment passed by the respondent-State on the basis of the said recommendation made by the full court of the High Court, was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dropped the charge nos. 1 to 3 and upheld the charge nos.

4 to 11 against the appellant, and reduced the punishment to the curtailment of 70% in place of 90% of his pensionary benefits. [Para 11][953-F-H; 954-A]

1.3 Pertinently, the appellant had not made any allegation with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or AND ANR.

contravention of any statutory rules or regulations having occasioned during the course of enquiry proceedings or in the decision-making process. Therefore, in absence of any such allegations, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the High Court on the administrative side, and the impugned order passed by the High Court on the judicial side did not warrant any interference of this court. When the Enquiry proceedings have been found to have been conducted in proper and legal manner, and when the High Court on administrative side as well as on judicial side, has accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer qua the charge nos. 4 to 11 levelled against the appellant as “proved”, holding him guilty of having committed “misconduct”, this court was not expected to sit as an appellate authority and revaluate the adequacy or reliability of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. [Para 12][954-B-D]

1.4 The submission that the disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the judicial officers merely because the judgment or orders passed by them were wrong, is accepted, nonetheless, in the instant case the appellant was found to have conducted the proceedings in the manner which had reflected on his reputation and integrity. There was enough evidence and material to show that the appellant had misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial officer, and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the specific provisions of law, to unduly favour the subsequent purchasers of the acquired lands who had no right to claim compensation, and that such orders were actuated by corrupt motive. Under the circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 235 of the Constitution. Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration. It is often said that “the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water”. A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. [Paras 14 and 15][955-D-H] Agra Development Authority, Agra Vs. State of UP and Ors. 2004 SCC Online All 269; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Iqbal Singh (1976) 1 SCC 570 : [1976] 2 SCR 988; Khorshed Shapoor Chenai Mrs Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (1980) 2 SCC 1 : [1980] 2 SCR 315; Food Corporation of India Vs. Kailash Chand 2014

(1) ADJ 379 (DB); Soran Singh Vs. Collector & Ors. 2018 SCC Online All 5936; UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. (1996)

3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1 SCR 683; Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008] 10 SCR 1012; Krishna Prasad Verma (Dead) Thr Legal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 640 : [2019] 12 SCR 861; Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 11 SCC 760; Abhay Jain Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 319; Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) Tr. Lrs Vs District Collector Chittoor (2019) 4 SCC 500: [2019] 5 SCR 372; Union of India vs. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56 : [1993] 1 SCR 296; C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 457 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 319; High Court of Judicature At Bombay Vs. Shashikant S. Patil And Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 416 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 205; State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 : [2011] 3 SCR 589 – referred to.