UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MANAS KUMAR GUHA

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 28-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 272 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MANAS KUMAR GUHA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2175 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Findings 
C recorded by Enquiry officer - Interference by High Court in 
exercise of its ppwer of judicial review - Scope - Complaint 
against appellant-railway constable that he alongwith another 
constable jointly dragged and assaulted a passenger and 
snatched money from his possession - Enquiry officer held 
o the appellant guilty - Disciplinary authority ordered removal 
of appellant - Appellate Authority, however, substituted the 
punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement -
High Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement on 
ground that the complainant-passenger was not examined -
E Justification - Held: Not justified - The enquiry officer took 
all pains to call the complainant from his native place but he 
did not appear during the enquiry - Nevertheless, the written 
complaint supported the charges levelled against the 
respondent - Further, respondent, in his defence, had 
F accepted the detention of the complainant and his release, 
though he denied the allegation of money snatching - The 
High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review from 
the order of the disciplinary authority does not act as a Court 
of appeal and appraise evidence - It interferes with the finding 
G of enquiry officer only when the finding is found to be perverse 
- On facts, the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was 
based on materials on record and on proper appreciation of 
evidence, which cannot be said to be perverse, calling for 
H 
272 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MANAS KUMAR 
273 
GUHA 
interference by the High Court in exercise of its power of A 
judicial review. 
The respondent, a Constable in the Railway 
Protection Force, was served with a memo of charge 
containing the allegation that while on duty at the Railway 
8 
Station he alongwith another Constable jointly caught 
hold of a passenger at the Railway platform, dragged and 
assaulted him and snatched money and the key of a 
tractor from his possession. The enquiry officer held the 
respondent guilty and the disciplinary authority agreeing 
C 
with the same inflicted upon him the punishment of 
remQval from service. The Appellate Authority, however, 
::>et aside the order of removal on various grounds 
including the ground of non-examination of the 
complainant-passenger and directed for de novo enquiry. 
De novo enquiry was held, however, the complainant did 
D 
m>t appear. Nonetheless the respondent was again held 
guilty and r~mPYec! from sery!ce in terms of the order of 
the disciplinary aut'1ority. The Appellate Authority, 
however, substituted the punishment of removal from 
service to that of compulsory retirement. The order was 
E 
affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Division 
Bench of the High Court, however, set aside the order of 
the Single Judge and quashed the order of compulsory 
retirement on the ground that the complainant was not 
examined. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HEL0:1. The Appellate Authority while setting aside 
the order of removal and directing for de-novo enquiry 
earlier had found the same bad in law on account of G 
various grounds including the ground of non-
examination of the complainant. Thereafter in the de novo 
enquiry, the enquiry officer had taken pains to call the 
complainant from his native place but he did not appear 
H 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A during the enquiry. It is not the case of the respondent 
that the disciplinary authority purposely withheld the 
complainant from appearing in the departmental enquiry. 
A copy of the written complaint was produced during the 
course of enquiry which supports the charge levelled 
B against the respondent. Further the respondent !n his 
defence had accepted the detention of the complainant 
and his release. However, he denied the allegation of 
snatching of money from him but from his own defence, 
it is evident that he had accepted the incident except that 
c he had not snatched the money. On the basis of the 
materials on record, the enquiry officer held the 
respondent guilty with which the disciplinary authority as 
also the appellate authority agreed. It is well settled that 
High Court while exercising the power of judicial review 
0 from the order of the disciplinary authority does

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