LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus CHITRA VENKATA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.,. ~ I/:( f .. ~· • .. ·t. A B c D E F G STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. CHITRA ~TA RAO August 29, 1975 521 -- t .:;. [A. N. RAY, C.J., K, K. MATHEW AND Y. V. CIIANDRACHUD, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950, A.rt. 22&-Scope ·of High Court's power in rela- tion to depa1tn1ental enquiries intd guilt of goYernment servants . (1) The jurisdictiQn of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari under ~rt. 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction, and not as an appellate court. 'fhe. fip.d1ngs of.fact reached by an inferior court or tribun<l!l as result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in these proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be corrected but not an error of . fact, however, grave it may be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal a writ can be issued if it i!'I shown that the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of la\V which can be corrected by a writ of certiorc:!fi, but if there is somo evidence which may reasonably supPort the conclusion, its adequacy or sufficiency and the inference of fact drawn, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Court is concerned to determine whether the inquiry is held by an autho- rity competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Therefore, in departmental enquries relating to the guilt of delinquent officers, the High Court may interfere only where the departmental authorities have held the proceeding1 against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair deci- sion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case, or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevMJt considerations, or where the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and Capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. [525-E-527B] State of Andhra PradesH v. S. Sree Rama Rao [1963) 3 S.C.R. 25; Railway Board, representing the Union cJf JndW, New Delhi & Anr. v. Niranjan Sinrh [1969] 3 S.C.R. 548 and Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhaknslman & Ors. [1964] 5 S.C.R. 64, referred to. (2) There is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a. public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him the rule followed in criminal trials, namely, that an offence is not established unless proved beyond reason- able doubt, must be applied. [525F.G] In the present case, charges that the respondent fradulently claimed travelline allowance were inquired int9 by the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal. The Tribunal found him guilty and recommended dismissal. The Government accept- ed the recommendation and dismissed the respondent. In a writ petition, challenging the order of dismissal, the High Court equated the charge of mis- conduct to a charge under s.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, discussed the eviden:::e and findings of the Tribunal on that basis and held, that the ·prosecution did not adduce m~terial and essential evidence namely, the oonductor's chart which would show whether the respondent travelled on a particular day, that a statement made by the respondent during investigation was not admissible in evidence, that it wa! not safe to rely on it. and set aside the order of dismissal. H Allowing the appeal to this Court. HELD: (a) The High Court was not correct in holding that the dome!tic inttuiry before the . Tribunal. was the .same as prosecution in a criminal case. fl'I"' ' ~ [525C·DJ 3-L925SupCl/75 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 1 s.c.~. (b) The respondent was. given full opportunity to explain the statement made by him during investigation. Further, the Tribunal did not base its find- ing only on that statement. It had given its reasons for its conclusion and it is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at that conclusion. The High Court had accepted the explanation that the conductors' charts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.