The Supreme Court in, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, AND ORS. V. RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY reiterated the jurisdiction of writ courts and stated that the findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal on the appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings.
Facts
The Respondent was a constable with RPF. In 2006 the respondent was suspended with immediate effect pending enquiry and subsequently, in 2007 he was fined with a penalty. The inquiry officer exonerated the respondent. The disciplinary committee however removed him on account of the gravity of charges of gross neglect and abuse of authority. An appeal was made to DIG-cum- Additional Security Commissioner. The authority partially ruled against him and reduced his punishment. A review of the same was sought by NGP stating that his appointment would deteriorate the image of RPF. It was stated that the respondent had earlier been arrested by CBI in the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. An appeal was filed before RPF railway board and it was rejected. The respondent approached Bombay HC.
The decision of Bombay HC
The High Court noted that the charge against the writ petitioner was that he did not submit the F.I.R. The High Court held that the order of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner dated 05.09.2007 wherein it had been observed that such thefts are found to be common, and in the absence of any pecuniary loss being caused, would not warrant the extreme punishment of removal from service was the correct view, particularly since there was no imputation of connivance or corrupt practice. This according to the High Court had not been considered by the Chief Security Commissioner and the Director-General of the RPF. With respect to the issue of abuse of power the person who was allegedly the victim was not examined. Hence this charge was unproven. Thus Bombay HC ordered reinstatement and said that he would be entitled to all consequential benefits, including back wages to the extent of 50% on the remitted post, without future effect. The petitioners in the present case approached the SC.
Analysis by SC
The court perused the records and submissions. The SC stated that there is no allegation of malafides against the disciplinary authority i.e. Chief Security Commissioner, 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. The SC rejected the plea of using CBI arrest as one of the reasons to remove him. The appeal however was allowed and the judgment of HC was set aside. The court analyzed on decisions of courts with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental inquiry against a public servant. Cases like State of AP v. S. Sree Rama Rao, State of AP v. Chitra Venkata Rao set an important precedent. The court said, “The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The court exercises the power, not as an
appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal on the appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ court, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may be.” The court thus erred in its decision as it is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and reappreciate the evidence led before the inquiry officer.
In Union of India v. P Gunasekram, the SC held, “Under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not : (i) re-appreciate the evidence;(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
Case Details:-
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3820 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32580 of 2017)
Coram- Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
