HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT versus HITENDRAVRAJLALASHARA&ANR.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 24-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1006 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT 
v. 
HITENDRAVRAJLALASHARA&ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10304 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDAAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Arts. 226 and 227 -
Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of interference - Certain 
a/legations made against the respondent-judicial officer -
C Enquiry held and responde(lt dismissed from service -
Respondent's application before the High Court allowed and 
inquiry report and order of dismissal set aside - Held: High 
Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence acting as court 
of appeal - The enquiry officer rightly rendered the finding 
D against the respondent - Order of dismissal was justified -
Service law- Dismissal from service. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1. It is a well accepted principle of law that 
the High Court while exercising powers under Articles 
E 226 and 227 of the Constitution does not act as an 
appellate court and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and 
confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if 
any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or 
violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant 
F case, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence acting 
as a court of appeal. The order of the High Court is not 
sustainable. On facts, it was found that no procedural 
irregularity was committed by the Enquiry Officer in the 
disciplinary proceedings as the same was conducted in 
G accordance with Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 
1971, and principles of natural justice. The enquiring 
authority had elaborately considered the charges leveled 
against the delinquent officer and rightly held to be 
proved. The Enquiry Officer rightly rendered the finding 
H 
1006 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARATv. HITENDRAVRAJLAL 
1007 
AS HARA 
against the delinquent and same was accepted by the A 
High Court and on its recommendation the order of 
dismissal was passed by the appointing authority and it 
was legally justified. [Para 6](1010-B-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
10304 of 2014. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-08-2013 of_the 
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (on Judicial Side) in 
Special Civil Application No. 15449 of 2008. 
D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Mrs. Sumita Ray,Advs. C 
for the Appellant. 
Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against D 
the judgment and final Order dated 30.8.2013. passed by the 
High Court Gujarat atAhmedabad in Special Civil Application 
No.15449 of 2008. The respondent was working as a Judicial 
Officer under the administrative control of the High Court 
namely the appellant herein. Labour Court of Bhavnagar had 
E 
passed ex-parte award dated 17.7.1993 in Reference (LCB) 
No.490of1990 in favour of workman, wherein his termination 
was set aside with a direction to grant consequential benefits. 
The employer filed Misc. Application No. 92 of 1993 on 
21.11.1993 to set aside the ex-parte award in the said case 
F 
and the Labour Court dismissed the application on 28.4.1997. 
2.Employer filed another Misc. Application No.37of1997 
praying to set aside the ex-parte award in the said case. 
Meanwhile workman filed Recovery Application No.279 of 
1997 and the Labour Court directed recovery in pursuance to G 
order passed in Reference LCB No.490 of 1990. Challenging 
the original award and the order passed in recovery application 
the employer preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 446 and 
520 of 1998 and the High Court dismissed the same. 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent as In-charge Judge of the Labour Court of 
Bhavnagar allowed the employer's Misc. Application No.37 
of 1997 on 8.5.1998. The workman filed complaint dated 
13.5.1998 before the President, Industrial Tribunal. The 
workman challenged the said order by filing Civil Application 
8 
No. 4460of1998 on 15.9.1999 and the High Court dismissed 
the same. Two Members of the Industrial Court on 28.12.1999 
conducted preliminary inquiry on the complaint of the workman 
against the respondent and concluded against him.Aggrieved 
by the Order in Special Civil Application No.4460 of 1998 both 
C the workman and employer preferred independent Letters 
PatentAppeal Nos.1362of 1999and 1412of 1999. They came 
to be disposed of by common order dated 27 .3.2000 in terms 
of settlement arrived at b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.