Back
1999 Supreme(SC) 993
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
C.A. No. 4993 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14724/98)
Decided On: 09.09.1999
KS. Saini Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. Respondent
In writ jurisdiction, courts will not substitute their own findings for those of an enquiry authority if the decision is based on some legal evidence and is not perverse, provided the principles of natural justice were followed.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Municipality Act, 1911 - Section 240 - Removal of elected office bearer - Scope of judicial review in writ jurisdiction - Court 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, it is not the function of the court to review the evidence and arrive at its own independent finding - Enquiring authority is the sole judge of fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding (Para 16).
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Issuance of detailed show cause notices, opportunity to file written reply, and grant of personal hearing satisfy the requirements of natural justice - Refusal of further adjournments does not necessarily constitute a breach of these principles (Para 18).
(C) Mala fides - Allegations of malice must be supported by material; a denial by way of affidavit by the concerned authority may be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
An elected president of a municipal council was removed from office following an enquiry into several charges. The charges included abruptly adjourning a council meeting and seizing the proceeding book, making irregular appointments of teachers without following prescribed rules or notifying the employment department, appointing a relative without obtaining prior statutory approval, and failing to deposit funds for a water supply scheme. The removal was challenged on the grounds of non-application of mind, violation of natural justice, and malice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the enquiry authority based its conclusions on available material after considering the defense. The findings were neither perverse nor based on no material. The process of issuing show cause notices and providing a personal hearing ensured compliance with the principles of natural justice. The allegation of malice was not substantiated.
Issues: Whether the removal order was vitiated by non-application of mind, violation of the principles of natural justice, or the malice of the concerned authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited; the court cannot substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority if the findings are based on some legal evidence and are not perverse.
Result: Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Santosh Hegde, J.
1. 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 01 omission and commission which the appellant is alleged to have committed during Ins 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 thc resolution No. 23 was being discussed men 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.
xxx
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 15.4.1997 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 3.9.1996 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.
xxx
CHARGE NO. 9:-
At the time of making appointment of teachers in Shivalik Model School, you have appointed o
