LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S. SREE RAMA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
L. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. SREE RAMA RAO (B. P. SINHA C. ]., ]. C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARjj.) 25 Public Se-rvant-Disoiplinary action-Writ Petition- Interference by High Gourt-Pri1'ciples-Gonstitution of India, Art. 226. The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge 01 a police station. One D, suspected of having committed an offence, was apprehended by the village Munsif and was sent to the p•,lice station. He was handed over to the respondent. The respondent declined to give a written acknowledgment of having received D and made no entries in the station diary re1:arding him. D was confined in the police station for several days without being produced before a Magistrate. A departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining D. The defence set up by him was that D had never been handed over to him because he had escaped while on his way to the police station. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry, found him guilty of the charge. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police gave him a show cause notice and after considering his explanation ordered that he be dismissed from service. On appeal, the Inspector-General of Police modified the order of dismissal and converted it into one for re1noval fro1n service. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the order and the High Court quashed the orders. Held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders. The High Court was wrong in its view that in a· departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal trial that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to tbe satisfaction of the court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied the high court could set aside the order of the departmental authority in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the consti- tution. The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over \he decision of the authority holding a departmental enquiry : J96S April JQ 196J SW1 of Andhr~ Pr•tl1Jh y, S. Sr11 Ramil RllD 26 SUPREKtE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL; it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held by a competent auth•)rity and according to the procedure prescribed and whether the rul•" of natural justice have been observed. Where there is some evidence which the authority has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the .officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its juriidiction under Art. 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be convassed before the High Court. In the present case, the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular, no rules of natural justice were voilated, the conclusions were borne out by the evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity of examining his witnesses. Therefore, the conclusions of the punishing authority were not open to be questioned before the High Court. CIVIL APPELLA'l'E JuRISDWTJON: Civil Appeal No. 626of1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 922 of " 1956. T. V. R. Tataahari and P. D. Menon, for the _ appellants. K. Bhimas:i,nkaram and T. Satyariarayana, for the respondent. 1963. April 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAHj.-On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspec- tor General of Police, State of Andhra, passed an order dismissing the n·spondent (who was a sub-inspec- tor of police appointed on probation) from service. On appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order was altered into one of rem ova 1 from -service. The respondent then moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a petition under Art. 22G of the Constitu- tiop for a writ of certiorari or other appro:priate .. • • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 27 writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police including his order dated September 24, 1955, and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated March 10, 1955, and for such other orders as the Court may deem fit. The High Court quashed the two impugned orders. Against the order passed by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.