Administrative law: Judicial review – Punishment for misconduct – Interference by court, permissibility – In the instant case, a complaint of illegal gratification was filed against respondent-Inspector – Disciplinary proceedings conducted against him – Inquiry officer returned a finding that the charges levelled against him were proved – Termination from service – Aggrieved respondent invoked the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Tribunal set aside the order of punishment by holding that the criminal court, on the same set of facts, did not place reliance on the deposition of witnesses, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to rely upon such evidence to hold that respondent demanded illegal gratification – High Court found that similar evidence was not accepted in criminal trial and that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which made it unreliable – On appeal, held: The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process – The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence – It was not the case of no evidence or that the findings were perverse – The finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct was interfered with only on the ground that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the Department – However, the discrepancies in the evidence would not make it a case of no evidence – The Inquiry Officer had appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct – The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and passed an order of punishment – An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed – Once the evidence was accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by re-appreciating evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate Authority – Service law – Termination.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct. [Paras 7, 14][621-A; 625-F-G]
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 : [1964] SCR 25; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr. (2000)
1 SCC 416 : [ 1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 205; State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 : [2011] 3 SCR 589; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 – relied on.
Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) 2 SCC 308 : [2017] 1 SCR 389 – referred to.
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.