MONI SHANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 871 
'i. 
.. 
MONI SHANKAR 
A 
II. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 1729 of 2008) 
MARCH 4, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
~ 
J.-
Service Law -
Trap laid - Initiation of departmental 
proceedings - Delinquent employee found guilty - Dismissal 
of departmental appeal and review - Application before c 
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allowed - Dismissal of writ 
petition by High Court holding that re-appreciation of evidence 
was not permissible by High Court - On appeal, held: Order 
of the Tribunal is justified - There was non-compliance of terms 
of Railway Manual in conducting the trap and the delinquent D 
~ 
employee was not examined in terms of the relevant Discipline 
., 
Rules -
Violation of terms of the manual, being executive 
instructions, though do not create any legal right, but they· 
cannot be totally ignored - though re-appreciation of the 
evidence is not within domain of the Tribunal, but it can 
E 
consider the question whether evidence led was sufficient to 
arrive at conclusion of guilt - On certain aspects even judicial 
review of facts is permissible - High Court wrongly drew 
presumption against the employee without there being any 
... 
factual foundation therfor - Facts not falling within perview of 
s. 57 of Evidence Act, cannot be taken judicial notice of -
F 
• 
Railway Vigilance Manual - Paragraph 704 and 705 - Railway 
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - r. 9 (21) - Judicial 
Review - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 57. 
Appellant was working as a Booking Supervisor with G 
Central Railways. In the course of a decoy check, he was 
found to have overcharged a sum of Rs. 51- on the ticket 
.~J\ 
issued to the decoy passenger. Departmental proceeding 
was initiated against him, wherein he was found guilty. A 
871 
H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
I' 
A penalty of reduction of his pay to the lowest scale of pay 
was given. Departmental appeal as well as revision was 
... 
dismissed. Appellant filed application before central 
Administrative Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the same holding 
that in the facts of the case, charges could not be said to 
B have been proved; that the trap was laid by not complying 
with paragraphs 704 and 705 of Railway Vigilance Manual; 
and that the mandatory provision of Rule 9 (21) of Railway 
< 
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were also not 
.... 
complied with. Respondent-State filed writ petition, which 
c was allowed by High Court, holding that the Tribunal in 
its original order having entered into the realm of evidence 
and re-appreciated the same, exceeded its jurisdiction. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 The trap was not conduced in terms of 
.. 
the Railway Vigilance Manual; the Enquiry Officer acted 
" 
as a Prosecutor and not as an independent quasi judicial 
authority; he did not comply with Rule 9(21) of the Railway 
E Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, evidently, 
therefore, it was not a case where the order of the Tribunal 
warranted interference at the hands of the High Court. 
[Para 27] [887-C, D] 
1.2 Although paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual 
J. 
F being executive instructions do not create any legal right 
'-
but total violation of the guidelines together with other 
factors could be taken into consideration for the purpose 
... 
of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the department 
has been able to prove the charges against the delinquent 
G official. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial 
one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not 
applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural 
justice are required to be complied with. The Court 
,,, 
exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider 
, 
H as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct 
MONI SHANKAR v. UNION OF INDIAAND ANOTHER 
873 
on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of A 
evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant 
facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts 
must be based on evidence which meet the requirements 
of legal principles. The Tribunalwas, thus, entitled to arrive 
at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence B 
adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face 
• • 
value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements 
of burden of proof, namely - preponderance of probability. 
If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of 
proportionalit

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