THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. versus N. GANGARAJ

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
v.
N. GANGARAJ
(Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Administrative law: Judicial review – Punishment for
misconduct – Interference by court, permissibility – In the instant
case, a complaint of illegal gratification was filed against
respondent-Inspector – Disciplinary proceedings conducted against
him – Inquiry officer returned a finding that the charges levelled
against him were proved – Termination from service – Aggrieved
respondent invoked the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Tribunal set aside
the order of punishment by holding that the criminal court, on the
same set of facts, did not place reliance on the deposition of
witnesses, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Disciplinary
Authority to rely upon such evidence to hold that respondent
demanded illegal gratification – High Court found that similar
evidence was not accepted in criminal trial and that there were
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which made it
unreliable – On appeal, held: The power of judicial review is
confined to the decision-making process – The Court/Tribunal in
its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority
to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence – It was not the case of no evidence or
that the findings were perverse – The finding that the respondent
was guilty of misconduct was interfered with only on the ground
that there were discrepancies in the evidence of the Department –
However, the discrepancies in the evidence would not make it a
case of no evidence – The Inquiry Officer had appreciated the
evidence and returned a finding that the respondent was guilty of
misconduct – The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of
the inquiry officer and passed an order of punishment – An appeal
before the State Government was also dismissed – Once the evidence
was accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power
of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 616
616
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
with the findings of facts recorded by re-appreciating evidence as
if the Courts are the Appellate Authority – Service law – Termination.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The interference in the order of punishment by the
Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error.
The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making
process. The power of judicial review conferred on the
constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate
authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are
perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct
has been interfered with only on the ground that there are
discrepancies in the evidence of the Department. The
discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no
evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and
returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.
[Paras 7, 14][621-A; 625-F-G]
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao
AIR 1963 SC 1723 : [1964] SCR 25; B.C. Chaturvedi
v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4
Suppl. SCR 644; High Court of Judicature at Bombay
through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr. (2000)
1 SCC 416 : [ 1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 205; State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4
SCC 584 : [2011] 3 SCR 589; Union of India v. P.
Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 – relied on.
Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) 2
SCC 308 : [2017] 1 SCR 389 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1964] SCR 25
relied on
Para 7
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644
relied on
Para 9
[1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 205
relied on
Para 10
[2011] 3 SCR 589
relied on
Para 11
(2015) 2 SCC 610
relied on
Para 13
[2017] 1 SCR 389
referred to
Para 14
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. v. N. GANGARAJ
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8071
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2011 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 1985 of 2010 (S-KAT).
V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the Appellants.
Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Ms. E. R. Sumathy, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The State is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the
High Court of Karnataka on 25th August, 2011 whe

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