STATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 17-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 348 
A 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
v. 
MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal NO. 5549 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 17, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
~ 
c 
Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope of - Held: It is not 
open to High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise, as a court 
of appeal, the evidence Jed before inquiry officer and examine 
findings recorded by him - In the instant case, High Court 
erred in scanning the evidence as if it was a court Of appeal 
D - Order of High Court is set aside and matter remitted to it 
1"' 
for consideration afresh in accordance with law and 
expeditiously - Judicial review - Service Law - Disciplinary 
~. 
proceedings - Sachiva/aya Niyam Sangrah, Uttar Pradesh 
Shashan - Para 266. 
E 
In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the 
petitioner, who was the 'private secretary to a State 
Minister, consequent upon the report of the inquiry officer 
finding him guilty of misappropriation of public money 
fraudulently withdrawn by him from the account of the 
' ,A 
F 
State Minister, the High Court reappreciating the evidence 
.,_,. 
produced before the inquiry officer entered into merits of 
the findings recorded by him, and quashed the order of 
dismissal. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the 
appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The power of judicial review is not directed 
,_,,. 
against the decision but is confined to the decision 
H 
348 
' 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 349 
~ 
& ANR. 
making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on A 
merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to 
re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the 
Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by him 
as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In 
the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in B 
scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The 
approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter 
suffers from manifest error,. and the matter requires fresh 
consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. 
Resultantly, the order passed by the High Court is set c 
aside; the matter is remitted to it for disposal of the writ 
petition afresh in accordance with law and expeditiously. 
;. A 
[Para 12] [357-H; 358-A-C] 
J. 
State of Orissa vs. Muralidhar Jena, AIR 1963 SC 404; 
D 
State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723; State 
of Madras vs. G. Sundatram, AIR 1965 SC 1103 and State 
of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs. Chitra Ventaka Rao (1975) 
2 sec 557, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
E 
AIR 1963 SC 404 
relied on 
Para 8 
... ~ 
If' 
AIR 1963 SC 1723 
relied on 
Para 9 
AIR 1965 SC 1103 
relied on 
Para 10 
F 
(1975) 2 sec 557 
relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5549 of 2009. 
~ 
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2008 of the High G 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in 
Writ Petition No.1564 (SB) of 2003. 
S.R. Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
for the Appellants. 
Respondent No.1 In-Person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Th~ question that this Court is called upon to determine 
. 
~ 
in this appeal by special leave is: whether the High Court was 
' 
justifi~d in quashing the order dated November 24, 2003, 
c 
whereby the respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service?. 
3. Man Mohan Nath Sinha , respondent No.1, was posted 
as Private Secretary (Class II) to the then State Minister, Minor 
Irrigation, Shri Ram Asrey Paswan, where he worked from 
~ ,4
November 18, 1997 to April 24, 1999. He is said to have, 
D 
misappropriated the government money while he was attached 
~
· as Private Secretary to the then State Minister. The Vigilance 
Department after holding an enquiry against respondent No.1 
sought his prosecution under Sections 408, 409, 420, IPC, as 
well. as under Sections 13 ( 1) (b) read with ~ 3 (2) of the 
E 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On October 9, 2001, the 
respondent No.1 ·was placed under suspension. The 
disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him and 
he was served with the chargesheet on October 19, 2001. The 
1-'
'Ill 
principal charge against the respondent No.1 was that while 
F 
being attached as a Private Secretary to the State Minister, 
Minor Irrigation, he took undue advantage of the i

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