NAND KISHORE PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 19-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
708 
NAND KISHORE PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
April 19, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Interference by lligh f7ourts, only 
when an impugned order suffers fronl any error of law or of no Cf'idence. 
The appellant a Bench Clerk and one Trilok Prasad Sinha, Fines Clerk 
\Ve.re tried for various offences under sections 120B, 409, 466, 474 and 477 A 
l.P.C. for embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1068/M being fines recovered by the 
Police and remitted to the Court through 1\ioney Orders. The Trial Magistrate 
discharged them. 
A departmental enquiry was, thereafter, instituted against 
him and on the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Diviisonal Officer, Sasaram, 
the District Magistrate who was the authority competent to appoint and remove 
the appellant, held : "The conduct of Nand Kishore Prasad is higWy suspicious 
but for insufficient evidence proceedings against him has to be dropped." There-
after, the Commissioner of Patna Division called upon the appellant to show 
cause why be should not be dismissed from service and after .perusing the reply 
submitted by the appellant reversed the order of the District 1\.fagistrate and 
directed removal of the appellant from service. 
An appeal inade to the Board 
of Revenue failed. 
The Writ Petitions filed in the Patna High Court, against 
the said orders were dismissed holding that since there was some evidence albeit 
not sufficient for conviction in a crimi1,1al Court, it could not be quashed in 
proceedings under the Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court 
HELD : 1. Two princi,ples as crystallised by judicial decision~: are to be 
borne in mind, while dealing with a case of the present type. 
The first is that 
disciplinary proceedings 
before a 
domestic 
tribunal are of a 
quasi-judicial 
character. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is / 
that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of son:e evidence, 
i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the 
guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspi:cion cannot 
be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. 
The second 
principle, which L<> a corollary from the first, is that if the disciplinary inquiry 
has been conducted fairly without bias or predilection, in accordance with the 
relevant disciplinary rules and the Constitutional provisions, the order passed 
by such author_ity cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 
of the Constitution, merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which 
would be insufficient for conviction of the delinquent on the same charge at a 
criminal trial. [713 D-G] 
Union of India v. H. C. Goel, A.LR. 1964 SC. 364 referred to. 
2. (a) In the instant case :-It was not a case of no evidence, but of 
evidence which was not adequate enough to carry conviction at a criminal trial. 
The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the impugned orders did 
not suffer from any error of law which may v.1arrant an interference in pro-
ceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. [715 G] 
(b) A conjoint reading and analysis of the impugned orders of the Com-
missioner and the Member, Board of Revenue would show that they purport to 
rest on these primary facts : 
a. Fine amounting to Rs. 1.068/ -
\:Vas realised by the Police and sent 
to the Court of the Magistrate, Sasaram, by money orders, where it 
was received on September 4, 1950. 
b. When this fine was imposed, and the aforesaid money orders were 
received, the appellant (Nand Kishore Prasad) was the- Bench Clerk 
< 
• 
• 
-
• 
Iii. K. PRASAD v. BIHAR STATE (Sarkaria, /".) 
709' 
of the Magistrate. The fine records were with him and it was he who 
used to issue distress warrants for realisation of outstanding fine. 
But after 4-9-1950 he did, not ta.ke further action for recovery or 
the fine in question, or for ensuring that the convicts suffered im-
prisonmt;;nt in default of payment of fine inflicted on them by the 
Court. 
c. A "receipt" (money order coupon) has been produced· "indicating 
that the Petitioner (Nand Kishore Prasad) had received this amount". 
d. "It is clear from the circumstances of the case that the money realised 
was not deposited .... I see no reason to interfere with the order of 
discharge" (passed by the Commissioner holding that the amount 
of Rs. 1,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.