HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus SHASHIKANT S. PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 28-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, THROUGH ITS 
A 
REGISTRAR 
v. 
SHASHIKANT S. PATIL AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 28, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS, A.P. MISRA AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED 
QUADRI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
B 
c 
Departmental enquiry-Findings in-Binding nature of-On 
disciplinary authority-Held: Inquiry is primarily intended to afford the 
delinquent officer an opportunity to meet the charges-Findings of Inquiry 
Officer not binding on disciplinary authority-Disciplinary authority can 
come to its own conclusions bearing in mind the views of Inquiry Officer-
Otherwise, the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to D 
liSttbordinate level-Jn the circumstances of the case, High Court erred in 
interfering with a well considered order passed by the disciplinary authority-
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
E 
Article 235-Power of High Court-Misconduct-Subordinate 
judiciary-Dishonest performance of a member of-Held: High Court cannot 
afford to bypass dishonest performance of a member of the subordinate 
judiciary-Any instance of High Court condoning or compromising with 
such dishonest performance amounts to erosion of judicial foundation 
F 
Article 235-Judges-Role and duty of-Held: Judges, at whatever 
level, represent the State and its authority unlike bureaucracy or the member 
of the other service-Judicial service is neither merely an employment nor 
judges merely employees-Judges exercise sovereign judicial power and are 
holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. 
G 
Article 226-Writ petition-Departmental authority-Decision of-
Jnterference with Permissibility-Held: permissible if proceedings are in violation 
of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations or vitiated by extraneous 
considerations or wholly arbitrary or capricious etc.-But departmental 
205 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A authority is sole judge of facts, if inquiry is properly conducted-In such 
cases, interference by High Court under Art. 226, not warranted. 
The respondent, who was a Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the 
State Judicial Service, acquitted an accused in a case. But the complainant 
sent a petition to the District and Sessions Judge alleging that he was 
B wrongfully arrested by the police as per a warrant of arrest issued by the 
respondent; that he was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of his 
locality and that he was kept in the lock-up during the night. 
The High Court framed charges against the respondent and appointed 
an Inquiry Officer to conduct a formal inquiry into the charges. The Inquiry 
C Officer submitted a report exonerating the respondent of the charges. But 
the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court did not agree with the findings 
of the Inquiry Officer and issued a notice to the respondent asking him to 
show cause as to why a major penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed 
on him. The Disciplinary Committee did not agree with the representation of 
D the respondent to the show cause notice and recommended compulsory 
retirement of the respondent, which was approved by the Governor. 
However, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order of 
compulsory retirement of the respondent on the ground that it was imperative 
for the Disciplinary Committee to discuss materials in detail and contest the 
E conclusions of the Inquiry Officer before recording its own conclusions. Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can 
F 
be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the 
principles of natural justice or in violation ofstatutory regulations prescribing 
the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by 
considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the 
G conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or 
capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, 
or grounds very similar to the above. But it cannot be overlooked that the 
departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High 
Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. 
The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the 
H findings can be based, then adequacy or e

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