UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus P. GUNASEKARAN

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1312 · Decided: 19-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 13 S.C.R. 1312 
A 
. 
UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
B 
v. 
P. GUNASEKARAN 
(Civil Appeal No.10386 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law- Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment 
- High Court acting as appellate authority, re-appreciating 
C even the evidence before the enquiry officer - Propriety -
Held: Not proper- In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court 
is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal - High 
Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 2261227 of the 
Constitution, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the 
D evidence - High Court can only see whether: a) the enquiry 
is held by a competent authority; b) the enquiry is held 
according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c) there 
is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting 
the proceedings; d) the authorities have disabled themselves 
E from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations 
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e) the 
authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by 
irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f) the conclusion, on 
the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that 
F no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such 
conclusion; g) the disciplinary authority had erroneoµsly 
failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h) the 
disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible 
evidence which influenced the finding; and i) the finding of 
G fact is based on no evidence- Under Article 2261227 of the 
Constitution, the High Court shall not:(i) re-appreciate the 
evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in 
case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; 
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the 
H 
1312 
. 
UNION OF INDIAANDOTHERSv. P. GUNASEKARAN 
1313 
reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal A 
evidence on which findings can be based; (vi) correct the 
error of fact however grave it may appear to be; and (vii) go 
into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its 
conscience - In the instant case, the impugned conduct of 
respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a B 
sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the 
disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting 
discontinuance in service - That view was endorsed by the 
Tribunal also - Thereafter, it was not open to the High Court 
to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the c 
same with a lesser or different punishment - Central Civil 
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 rr. - 3(1 )(i), (ii) & (iii) -
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 226 and 227. 
Words and Phrases - Word "integrity" - In context to 
service jurisprudence -Meaning of- Held: It depicts sterling D 
character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. 
State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree 
Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723: 1964 SCR 25; 
State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra 
Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557: 1976 (1) SCR 
521 ; State of Haryana and another v. Rattan 
Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 ; Chennai Water Supply 
and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 
4SCC108: 2014 (1) SCR 987; B.C. Chaturvedi 
v. Union of India and others (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 644 ; Union of India and 
another v. G Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549 ; Om Kumar and 
others v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386: 2000 
(4) Suppl. SCR 693 ; Coimbatore District Central 
Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central 
. Cooperative Bank Employees Association and 
another (2007) 4 sec 669 : 2001 (5) SCR 430 ; 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal 
India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar 
Chaudhuri and others (2009) 15 SCC 620: 2009 
(13) SCR 487 - relied on. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
B 
1964 SCR 25 
relied on 
Para 14 
1976 (1) SCR 521 
relied on 
Para 15 
(1977) 2 sec 491 
relied on 
Para15 
c 2014 (1) SCR 987 
relied on 
Para 16 
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 644 relied on 
Para 20 
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549 relied on 
Para 20 
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693 relied on 
Para 20 
D 2007 (5) SCR 430 
relied on 
Para 20 
2009 (13) SCR 487 
relied on 
Para 20 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
10386 of 2008. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18-09-2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 29757 
of 2002. 
Ranjit Kumar, SG, 

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