R. S. Saini vs State Of Punjab - 1999 Supreme(SC) 991

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(SC) 991

1999(7) Supreme 612
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
R.S. Saini -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4993 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14724/98)
Decided on 9-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Dutta, Rao Ranjit & Manoj Swarup, Advocates.

Headnote:Punjab Municipality Act, 1911-Sections 57, 240 & 241-Removal of President of Municipal Council-Legality of-Charges that appellant snatched proceeding book while proceeding was peacefully going on to avoid a resolution which was not liked by him and postponed meeting, without informing Employment department appointed teachers in school against Rules, Deputy Director was not associated in selection committee contrary to resolution, appointed his relative contrary to provisions of Act and had not released fund in respect of a water supply scheme due to which residents of area were facing problem of drinking water-Defence that charges framed by enquiring authority were mala fide and principles of natural justice were violated-Enquirying authority found that charges were proved-High Court concurred with findings-Record showed principles of natural justice not violated-Order of disciplinary authority did not suffer form vice of perversity-Removal order warrants no interference.
       Held : The rule that the court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the enquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the enquiring authority, it is not function of the court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The enquiring authority is the sole Judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the court in writ proceedings. (Para 16)
       A narration of the charges and the reasons of the enquiring authority for accepting the charges, as seen from the records, shows that the enquiring authority has based its conclusions on materials available on record after considering the defence put forth by the appellant and these decisions, in our opinion, have been taken in a reasonable manner and objectively. The conclusion arrived at by the enquiring authority cannot be termed as either being perverse or not based on any material nor is it a case where there has been any non-application of mind on the part of the enquiring authority. Likewise, the High Court has looked into the material based on which the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion, within the limited scope available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution and we do not find any fault with the findings of the High Court in this regard. (Para 17)
       The other two complaints made before us that there has been flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order in question was the end-product of malice entertained by respondent No. 4 against the appellant were also, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the High Court. It is found from record that the two detailed show cause notices enumerating the various charges giving necessary particulars were issued to the appellant and the appellant had filed a detailed written reply with reference to each one of the charges. The record also bears out that the appellant has been heard through his counsel and the complaint made that he was not given sufficient adjournments for further hearing, in our opinion, would not constitute a breach of the principles of natural justice. As has been noticed by the High Court, the allegation of malafides having been answered by respondent No. 4 by way of an affidavit denying the same and the High Court having chosen to accept the affidavit of respondent No. 4, and rightly so in our opinion, we do not find any material to differ from the said finding. (Para 18)
       We have noted earlier that the scope of judicial review in matters of this nature being restricted, the High Court had to consider the challenge to the impugned order with a limited degree of scrutiny that was called for. We too have considered the complaint within that limited scope in order to find out the correctness of the allegation that the impugned order of the disciplinary authority suffered from the vice of perversity, non-application of mind and tainted by malice and having come to the conclusion that the report of the enquiring authority cannot be faulted with on any of the grounds stated above, we are unable to agree with the appellant. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (Para 19)

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel.

3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 9852/98. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.6.1998 whereby he was removed from the office of the President, Municipal Council, Nangal. He also prayed for consequential reliefs like restraining the respondents from issuing notifications regarding electing respondent No. 3 as the President of the said Municipal Council. The said writ petition having failed, this appeal has been preferred.

4. It is the contention of the appellant both in the writ petition as well as in this appeal that he was elected as a member of the Municipal Council, Nangal on 20.11.1994 and under Section 57 of the Punjab Municipality Act, 1911 (for short ‘the Act’) the said Council was managing as many as 3 educational institutions; one of which was Shivalik Model School and sequel to certain political differences that arose between him and respondent No. 4, the appellant was served with two show cause notices out of which the first notice contained 11 charges and the second notice listed three charges; thus making 14 charges in all against him in regard to various acts of omission and commission which the appellant is alleged to have committed during his tenure as President of the Municipal Council. The appellant has alleged that these show cause notices were issued due to political ven detta at the instance of respondent No. 4 who wanted to promote the political career of respondent No. 3. Though the appellant had filed an elaborate written reply, showing cause against the charges, the appellant contends that he was not afforded a proper opportunity of defending himself and the enquiring authority did not apply its mind to the reply submitted by him and other relevant material on record that was available, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, coupled with the mala fide intentions of respondent No. 4 the impugned order of his removal came to be passed.

5. It is to be noted that out of the 14 charges that were levelled against the appellant, the authority has found only 5 charges proved against him. They are charge Nos. 3,5,6 and 9 enumerated in the first show cause notice and charge No. 2 enumerated in the second show cause notice. For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced hereunder :-

“Charge No. 3 :-

On 16.6.1997, the meeting of the Municipal Council which was proceeding peacefully and the resolution No. 23 was being discussed then you have without any reason postponed the meeting and snatched the proceeding book from Shri Subash Chand Steno, Municipal Council, Nangal who was writing the proceeding of meeting and went out of the meeting hall. By doing so you have misused your position.

x x x

Charge No. 5 :-

You have without giving information to Employment department and without taking any legal action appointed the teachers on 6 months basis at your own level which was against the Rules/Instructions.

Charge No. 6 :-

For filling up 21 vacant posts of teachers in Shivalik Model School neither any resolution was passed by the Committee nor approval for filling up these vacant posts was got from the Government. The approval for these appointments was made by the Municipal Council vide resolution No. 43.5 dated 15.4.1996 but the decision of Managing Committee has not been considered in the meeting of the Municipal Committee has not been considered in the meeting of the Municipal Council. (sic) The Managing Committee of Shivalik Model School had on 13.9.1996 decided to make Deputy Director (H.Q) to be one of the members but at the time of filling up these vacancies neither the Deputy Director (H.Q) was associated nor any intimation for associating him was issued.

x x x

Charge No. 9 :-

At the time of