UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus SUBRATA NATH

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 23-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 605
605
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
SUBRATA NATH
(Civil Appeal Nos.7939-7940 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 23, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
HIMA KOHLI J.]
Service Law: Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 :
r.32 – Disciplinary Authorities – Local police intercepted a truck
loaded with copper wires outside the port premises and informed
CISF that the copper wires had been removed from the scrap Port,
in the duration when the respondent-constable was on duty –
Respondent placed under suspension and charge sheeted for the
act of negligence and various delinquencies – Disciplinary Authority
imposed a penalty of dismissal from service, which was confirmed
by appellate and revisional authority – High Court converted the
punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement – Division Bench
directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and
further directed the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh order of
punishment in respect of the respondent in commensurate to his
negligence and dereliction of duty – On appeal, held: Being fact
finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine
the evidence forming part of the inquiry report – On finding the
evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental
inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose
appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind
the gravity of the misconduct – In exercise of powers of judicial
review, the High Court/tribunal cannot ordinarily re-appreciate the
evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty
imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so
disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience
– Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, erred by
setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the
respondent, thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside,
while that of the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate
Authority and the Revisional Authority is restored.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that courts ought to refrain
from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental
inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently
perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record,
based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice
have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been
adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary
Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere. [Para 15][615-
E]
1.2 Being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the
exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the
inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable
during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the
delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the
misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review,
the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily
reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in
respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment
imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock
the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed
for other reasons. [Para 22][621-B-D]
1.3 The approach of the Single Judge and the Division Bench
cannot be accepted. There was no good reason for the High Court
to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the
evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. This was clearly
an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible
in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both, the Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting
aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the
respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the
Appellate Authority. [Para 28][623-G-H; 624-A]
1.4 The findings returned by and conclusion arrived at by
the Disciplinary Authority, duly confirmed by the Appellate
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
Authority and upheld by the Revisional Authority in respect of
both the Articles of Charge levelled ag

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