GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. versus MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

} .. 
GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Dismissal for misconduct-Member of Discipline Force committing theft 
of camera lens while on duty which ran high security risk-Dismissed from 
service-Challenged-Held: Charges being serious called for stringent 
punishment-To instill the confidence of the public in the Establishment, the 
only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which 
has been rightly awarded. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Article 226-.Judicial review-Scope and ambit of-Held: High Court 
while exercising writ jurisdiction not to sit as an appellate authority and re-
appreciate the evidence-Its .Jurisdiction is confined to correct procedural 
error resulting in violation of principles of natural justice-Administrative E 
law-Judicial review. 
Respondent was a member of a Discipline Force holding the rank of 
Head Constable. On the occasion of visit of the then President of USA, he was 
assigned the Bandobust duty. During the Bandobust duty, he allegedly removed 
a camera lens and concealed the same, which was observed in the close circuit F 
by the Electrician, PW-4. Disciplinary Inquiry was ·initiated against him. 
Inquiry officer examined 4 witnesses and after conducting detailed 
inquiry and affording adequate opportunity to the respondent, found him guilty. 
After receipt of Inquiry report, Disciplinary authority issued SCN and after 
considering the reply to SCN, dismissed respondent from service. Respondent G 
unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal before Appellate Authority and 
Administrative Tribunal. However, his Writ Petition before High Court was 
allowed. Hence the present appeal by special leave. 
911 
H 
912 
SUPRE\1E COURf REPORTS 
[2006J I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. There is no allegation of violation of principles of natural 
4 
justice, or that the inquiry was conducted without following the procedures 
or rules and regulations. The only case put up by the respondent is that the 
theft or removal of lens by the respondent is not proved in the course of 
B Inquiry. Going through the Report of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, after 
examining PWs. I, 2, 3 and 4 and after affording adequate opportunity to the 
respondent, has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the 
respondent stood proved. 1915-G-H; 916-AI 
2. From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that 
C the High Court re-appreciated the evidence as an Appellate Authority. Apart 
from re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High 
Court also fell in grave error by directing the Govt. Pleader and the counsel 
for the respondent to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the Inquiry 
Officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the Inquiry as part of 
D additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the Inquiry 
Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs. I, 2, 3 and 4 during the 
Inquiry. 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 
E 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 re-appreci~ting the evidence as 
an Appellate Authority.1917-C-EI 
Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 and B.C. Chaturvedi 
F v. Union of India & Ors., 11995] 6 sec 749, referred to. 
3. Respondent's contention that the offence, said to have been committed, 
being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, 
inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment 
may be awarded in.place of dismissal from service is not acceptable. The 
G gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the 
offence. The respondent was holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty 
assigned to him ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct 
could have led to serious security lapse resulting in fatal consequences. But, 
'f 
because of timely detection by the electrician-PW4, the lens was recovered 
H and immediately restored. The inquiry officer was right in holding that the 
} 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. MOHD.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.