Important point
High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate Authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:Service Law—Dismissal from service—Respondent working as Head Constable while on bandobast duty during visit of U.S. President removed CCTV Lens from ceiling of office where he was on duty—Said removal of lens was observed in close circuit and was detected—Respondent on being inquired by Security Supervisor handed over the lens stating that same was lying at toilet—Disciplinary inquiry was taken up by Deputy Superintendent of Police who on basis of evidence of witnesses found charge against respondent proved—Considering reply to show cause, Disciplinary Authority dismissed respondent from service—Appellate Authority upheld the order—Administrative Tribunal dismissed the OA—High Court allowed the writ, set aside order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages—Appeal—No allegations of violation of principles of natural justice or that inquiry conducted without following procedure or rules—Only case set up by respondent was that theft or removal of lens by him was not proved—Inquiry officer had reached conclusion on basis of evidence of witnesses—High Court erred in reappreciating evidence as appellate authority—Jurisdiction of High Court was confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice—Punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to misconduct found proved in the facts and circumstance—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : At this stage, we may point out that there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry was conducted without following the procedures or rules and regulations. The only case put up before us by the respondent is that the theft or removal of lens by the respondent is not proved in the course of Inquiry. This contention need not detain us any longer because going through the Report of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, after examining PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and after affording adequate opportunity to the respondent, has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent stands proved. (Para 8)
       From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that the High Court re-appreciated the evidence as an Appellate Authority. Apart from re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High Court also fell in grave error by directing the Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent herein to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the Inquiry Officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the Inquiry as part of additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 during the Inquiry. By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. (Paras 10 and 11)
       This takes us to the last submission of the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence, said to have been committed, being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment may be awarded in place of dismissal from service. We are unable to countenance this submission. The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the offence. The respondent was a member of the Discipline Force holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty assigned to him was a ‘bandobast’ duty during the visit of the then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting into fatal consequences. But, because of timely detection of the electrician - PW 4, the lens was recovered and immediately restored. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of Disciplinary Force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the Establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded. (Para 15)

Judgment

H.K. Sema, J.—This appeal, preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9.12.2003 in Writ Petition No. 14146 of 2003 quashing the order of dismissal dated 21.9.2000 of the respondent herein and the order of the appellate authority dated 20.10.2001 confirming the order of dismissal. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that the respondent herein be reinstated into service forthwith with all back wages and all attendant benefits, which he could have received, had he not been dismissed from service. The High Court further directed that the respondent be reinstated into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This Court on 16.7.2004, while issuing notice granted interim stay of the impugned order. Further, on 18.7.2005, on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has been reinstated pursuant to the High Court order but the back wages have not been paid, this Court stayed the payment of back wages directed by the High Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The respondent, Mohd. Nasrullah Khan was working as Head Constable at Shamshabad Police Station of Ranga Reddy District Mr. Bill Clinton, the then President of the United States of America was to visit the Hi-Tech City in Hyderabad and the respondent was assigned the bandobast duty at the office of the Oracle Software India Limited on the 4th Floor of Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad. It is alleged that during the bandobast duty, the respondent removed the CCTV Lens No. VAT-660-DSC-56894 of Watal Company from ceiling of the said office and concealed the same. It is further alleged that the said removal of the lens was observed in the close circuit TV by one G. Sridhar, the Electrician (PW4) and he immediately went to the respondent and asked him about the removal but the respondent denied the same. The Electrician, thereafter, informed the same to the Security Supervisor and on enquiry by him, though the respondent denied of having removed the lens at the first instance, later handed over the same stating that the same was lying at the toilet.

3. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent by the Superintendent of Police, A.R. Ranga Reddy District by appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) by its order dated 19.4.2000. The substance of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour against the respondent are as follows :

“Shri Mohd. Nasrulla Khan, High Court 380 of P.S. Shamshabad (u/s) exhibited grave misconduct in committing theft of the C.C.T.V. lens costing about Rs. 15,000/- from the office of Oracle India Limited, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur on 24.3.2000, while on Bandobust duty, for personal gain.”

4. In course of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer examined as many as four witnesses and after conducting detailed inquiry by affording adequate opportunity to the respondent submitted its report dated 18.8.2000 holding that the charge against the respondent of theft of C.C.T.V. lens has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The Inquiry Officer, in its Report, also observed as under:

“The charges are serious in nature. The delinquent being the member of the disciplined force and being a protector of public property, ought not to have attempted to commit such a delinquency. I, therefore, propose that the delinquent may be awarded with a stringent punishment to meet the ends of justice.”

5. After receipt of the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent herein by the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect by an order dated 21.9.2000. It was further directed that the period of suspension from 30.3.2000 till the date of dismissal be treated as “Not on duty”. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 85

Important pointHigh Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate Authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate Authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice.