MUZAFFAR HUSAIN versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 06-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 939
939
MUZAFFAR HUSAIN
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3613 of 2022)
MAY 06, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Judiciary: Subordinate judiciary – Disciplinary action
against judicial officer – Judicial officer-appellant took voluntary
retirement from service and joined the tribunal as member –
Allegations of misconduct against him, while he was discharging
his duties as judicial officer – Charges levelled against him,
departmental enquiry conducted and charges found proved – Full
Court of the High Court resolved to punish the appellant with
curtailment of 90% of his pensionary benefits with immediate effect
– State sanctioned withholding of 90% from the pension of the
appellant – Challenge to, by the appellant – High Court reduced
the curtailment of pensionary benefits to the extent of 70% in place
of 90% – On appeal, held: Power of judicial review conferred on
the constitutional Court is not that of appellate authority but confined
only to the decision-making process – If the inquiry has been fairly
and properly conducted, and the findings are based on evidence,
the adequacy of the evidence or reliability of evidence would not
be a ground to interfere with the findings recorded in the
departmental enquiries – On facts, there was a regular disciplinary
proceedings conducted against the appellant after serving him the
chargesheet and giving him full opportunity of hearing – Further,
the appellant had not made any allegation with regard to violation
of principles of natural justice or contravention of any statutory
rules or regulations having occasioned during the course of enquiry
proceedings or in the decision-making process – Also, there was
enough evidence and material to show that the appellant had
misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial
officer, and had passed the judicial orders in utter disregard of the
specific provisions of law, to unduly favour certain parties, and
that such orders were actuated by corrupt motive. – Thus, the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the High Court on the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
administrative side, and the impugned order passed by the High
Court on the judicial side did not warrant any interference – High
Court justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction u/Art. 235
– U.P. Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 - r. 3 – Civil Services
Regulations – Art. 351(A) – Constitution of India – Art. 235.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power of judicial review conferred on the
constitutional Court is not that of an appellate authority but is
confined only to the decision-making process. Interference with
the decision of departmental authorities is permissible only if
the proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in contravention of statutory regulations
regulating such proceedings or if the decision on the face of it is
found to be arbitrary or capricious. The Courts would and should
not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in
the domestic enquiry, nor should interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry
has been fairly and properly conducted, and the findings are based
on evidence, the adequacy of the evidence or reliability of
evidence would not be a ground to interfere with the findings
recorded in the departmental enquiries. [Para 8][952-B-D]
1.2 Regular disciplinary proceeding conducted against the
appellant after serving him the chargesheet and giving him full
opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, pursuant to the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Full Court of the High Court
had resolved on 02.09.2006 to accept the said enquiry report
and punish the appellant with curtailment of 90% of pensionary
benefit with immediate effect. The order of punishment passed
by the respondent-State on the basis of the said recommendation
made by the full court of the High Court, was challenged by the
appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High
Court dropped the charge nos. 1 to 3 and upheld the charge nos.
4 to 11 against the appellant, and reduced the punishment to the
curtailment of 70% in place of 90% of his pensionary benefits.
[Para 11][953-F-H; 954-A]
1.3 Pertinently, the appellant had not made any allegation
with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
con

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