PRAVIN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1078 · Decided: 10-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
PRAVIN KUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6270 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law – Appellant, a paramilitary officer posted at local
unit of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) was entrusted
with conducting surprise searches of personnel and taking strict
action against corruption –Dismissed by disciplinary authority on
charges of corruption – FIR registered with CBI – Appellate authority
dismissed appellant’s appeal against dismissal order – Writ petition
filed by appellant – Dismissed – On appeal, held : Present case is
neither one where there is no evidence, nor is it one where this
Court can arrive at a different conclusion than the disciplinary
authority – Appellant received a fair trial – Plea that he should be
exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings as no criminal
chargesheet was filed by CBI after enquiry, rejected – Employer
always retains the right to conduct an independent disciplinary
proceeding, irrespective of the outcome of criminal proceeding –
Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment
for a proved delinquency subject to principles of proportionality
and fair play – Punishment of dismissal from service is far from
disproportionate to the charges of corruption, fabrication and
intimidation unanimously proved against the appellant – Armed
Forces – Principles of Natural Justice –Doctrine of Proportionality
– Penal Code, 1860 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – CISF
Rules, 1969 – r.34; r.29(a) r/w r. 31(a)- Schedule II – Constitution
of India – Art.14.
Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 136 and 226 – Scope of
judicial review – Service matters – Held: Constitutional Courts while
exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the
role of an appellate authority – Their jurisdiction is circumscribed
by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice –
Service Law – Principles of Natural Justice.
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1078
1078
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
Service Law – Principles of Natural Justice – “nemo judex in
sua causa” – When not violated – Discussed – Evidence Act, 1872 –
s.165.
Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings vis-à-vis criminal
proceedings – Distinction between standards of proof – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The power of judicial review discharged by
Constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in
appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power
exercised by a departmental appellate authority. Judicial review
is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits
of the decision itself. Judicial Review seeks to ensure fairness in
treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to
correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result
in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross
unreasonableness of outcome. The Constitutional Courts while
exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the
role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed
by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The
conclusion obtained by High Court was based upon evidences
and was detailed and well-reasoned. Furthermore, the High Court
didn’t restrict the scope of judicial review, rather adopted a liberal
approach, and delved further to come to its own independent
conclusion of guilt. The appellate authority had carefully dealt
with each plea raised by the appellant in his appeal and had given
detailed responses to all the contentions to satisfy the appellant’s
mind. The disciplinary authority too was impeccable and no
infirmity can be found in the report of the enquiry officer either.
Even in general parlance, where an appellate or reviewing Court/
authority comes to a different conclusion, ordinarily the decision
under appeal ought not to be disturbed in so far as it remains
plausible or is not found ailing with perversity. The present case
is neither one where there is no evidence, nor is it one where
this Court can arrive at a different conclusion than the disciplinary
authority. [Paras 25, 28-30][1090-B-E][1092-B-G]
2. Plea of the appellant that the fact that the enquiry officer
had put his own questions to the prosecution witness and cross-
PRAVIN KUMAR v. 

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