1. Police officer compulsorily retired following a disciplinary tribunal's finding of bribery — challenge to the order's validity and the evidence supporting the findings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 373
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal, J.R. Mudholkar, JJ.
The State of Madras - Appellant
Versus
G. Sundaram - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1964
Decided On : 09-10-1964
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :A Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate, A.V. Rangam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:F.S. Vaz, R. Natarajan and M.S. Narasimhan, Advocates.
For the Appellant :A Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate, A.V. Rangam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:F.S. Vaz, R. Natarajan and M.S. Narasimhan, Advocates.
A High Court, under Article 226, cannot re-appreciate evidence or review the adequacy/reliability of findings in a departmental enquiry; it can only interfere if the findings are unsupported by any evidence, provided the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority following natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226, 309, 311 and 313 - Police Act - Section 10 - Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules - Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Departmental enquiry - Scope of judicial review under Article 226 - High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by a competent Tribunal in a properly conducted departmental enquiry except when it be shown that the impugned findings were not supported by any evidence - Whether the evidence relied upon was satisfactory and sufficient for justifying the conclusion does not fall to be considered in a writ petition - Adequacy or reliability of evidence is not a matter to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Service Law - Compulsory retirement - Competency of authority - An order of compulsory retirement does not amount to an order of dismissal - State Government, being an authority higher than the prescribed competent authority, is competent to order compulsory retirement. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(C) Natural Justice - Enquiry by Tribunal - Where the procedure followed in a Tribunal enquiry is substantially the same as that provided in the service rules and adheres to the requirements of natural justice, the proceedings are valid. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
A police officer was found guilty of demanding and accepting bribes by a disciplinary tribunal, which recommended dismissal. The government instead ordered compulsory retirement. The High Court, in a letters patent appeal, quashed the order on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in reappreciating evidence. The State Government was competent to order compulsory retirement as a higher authority. The enquiry conducted by the tribunal was in accordance with natural justice and substantially followed the prescribed rules.
Issues: Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can examine the adequacy of evidence in a departmental enquiry; whether the State Government had the competency to order compulsory retirement; and whether the tribunal enquiry was prejudicial.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 226, the High Court's role is limited to determining if the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed prescribed procedure, and adhered to natural justice. It cannot review the adequacy or reliability of evidence unless there is no evidence at all to support the findings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the government was competent to order compulsory retirement under the Police Act and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 15 )
3. High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in writ petitions unless no evidence exists; State Government is a competent authority to impose penalties on police officers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. High Court under Article 226 cannot review the adequacy or reliability of evidence found by a competent tribunal, only whether any evidence exists. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order quashed; government order of compulsory retirement restored. (Para 20 )
6. Can a High Court review the adequacy of evidence in a departmental enquiry under Article 226?
No. The High Court cannot sit in appeal over findings of fact by a competent tribunal. It can only determine if the findings are unsupported by any evidence; the adequacy or reliability of legal evidence is not reviewable in a writ petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Is the State Government competent to order the compulsory retirement of a police officer under the Police Act?
Yes. The State Government is a higher authority than the officers specified in the Police Act and Rules, and such power is consistent with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
8. Is an enquiry conducted by a disciplinary tribunal valid if alternative procedures exist under service rules?
Yes, provided the procedure is substantially the same, adheres to the requirements of natural justice, and the authority has the power to refer the matter to the tribunal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
Raghubar Dayal, J.
This appeal, by the State of Madras, on certificate granted by the High Court of Madras, raises the question about the power of the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to consider the propriety and correctness of a finding of fact arrived, by the Government on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Tribunal appointed under the provisions of the Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Rules, framed by the Governor of Madras in connection with complaints against Government servants of the State. The question arises in this way.
2. Sundaram, respondent, was an Inspector of Police in the Madras State on August 30, 1951, when he is said to have demanded bribe from one Muniswamy Chetty, hereinafter referred to as Munuswamy. The latter approached the authorities who arranged a trap. In pursuance of that scheme, Muniswamy paid Rs. 750 to the respondent after night-fall on September 4, 1951. The officers taking part in the trap proceedings reached the spot on getting the pre-arranged signal from Muniswamy. The Government ordered an enquiry by G.O. Ms. No. 911 (Home) dated March 8, 1952 and the Tribunal made the enquiry and submitted its report on July 17, 1952. It found two charges, viz., charges Nos. 1 and 4 established and recommended the respondent's dismissal from service. In making this recommendation the Tribunal said :
"Without even taking his misconduct under Charge IV into consideration, the only punishment that would sufficiently meet his misconduct under Charge I is his dismissal from service".
3. Charge I was that the respondent actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of his position and authority, had on threats of prosecution for perjury, demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000 from Munuswamy on August 30, 1951 and ultimately received an amount of Rs. 750 from him in the early part of the night of September 4, 1951 at the respondent's house at Vaniyambadi. Charge IV related to 7 items and the Tribunal found that the presents, by three Sub-Inspectors, were received personally by the respondent, that the presents referred to in three other items were given but it had not been proved that the respondent had knowledge of the presents and that the seventh item was not proved.
4. The Government, by its order dated June 25, 1953 directed the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service instead of ordering his dismissal from service as recommended by the Tribunal. This order was passed after the Government had considered the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal, the representation of the respondent on the show cause notice issued to him and the fact that the Tribunal, when consulted about the contemplated alteration in the punishment, had adhered to its previous recommendation that the respondent be dismissed.
5. The respondent thereupon presented a writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court challenging the order of the Government retiring him compulsorily, on various grounds, including the competency of the Government to pass an order retiring him compulsorily, in view of the provisions of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 (Central Act XXIV of 1859), hereinafter called the Police Act, read with the Madras Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Police Rules, and the absence of any acceptable evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal accepted by the Government. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, repelled both the contentions holding that the Government had jurisdiction to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement and that the findings of the Tribunal were based on acceptable evidence of payment of the bribe to the respondent. The learned Judge could not accept the contention that there was no evidence at all on record to support the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. It does not
