2022 Supreme(SC) 433

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
MUZAFFAR HUSAIN – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3613 OF 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 21948 of 2019)
Decided On : 06-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Punishment – Power of judicial review conferred on Constitutional Court is not that of an appellate authority but is confined only to decision-making process – Interference with decision of departmental authorities is permissible only if proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice or in contravention of statutory regulations.
(2) Punishment – Showing undue favour to a party under guise of passing judicial orders is worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Punishment – Power of judicial review conferred on Constitutional Court is not that of an appellate authority but is confined only to decision-making process – Interference with decision of departmental authorities is permissible only if proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice or in contravention of statutory regulations regulating such proceedings or if decision on face of it is found to be arbitrary or capricious – Courts would and should not act as an Appellate Court and reassess evidence led in domestic enquiry, nor should interfere on the ground that another view is possible on material on record – If inquiry has been fairly and properly conducted, and findings are based on evidence, adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence would not be a ground to interfere with findings recorded in departmental enquiries. (Para 8)

(B) Service Law – Punishment – Misconduct by Judicial Officer – Curtailment of pensionary benefits to the extent of 70% – There was a regular disciplinary proceedings conducted against appellant after serving him charge-sheet and giving him full opportunity of hearing – Appellant had not made any allegation with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or contravention of any statutory rules or regulations having occasioned during course of enquiry proceedings or in decision-making process – In absence of any such allegations, subjective satisfaction arrived at by High Court on administrative side and impugned order passed by High Court on judicial side did not warrant any interference of this court – Appellant was found to have conducted proceedings in the manner which had reflected on his reputation and integrity – There was enough evidence and material to show that appellant had misconducted himself while discharging his duties as a judicial officer, and had passed judicial orders in utter disregard of specific provisions of law, to unduly favour subsequent purchasers of acquired lands who had no right to claim compensation and that such orders were actuated by corrupt motive – Under the circumstances, High Court was perfectly justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 235 of Constitution – Showing undue favour to a party under guise of passing judicial orders is worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct – Extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration – A Judge must decide case on the basis of facts on record and law applicable to case – If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:

Challenge in the instant appeal is to the Order dated 17.04.2019 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition being no. 496 of 2017 filed by appellant challenging the order of punishment issued by respondent-State pursuant to decision of the Full Court of High Court taken on the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant for alleged misconduct committed by him as a judicial officer.

Findings of Court:

When the Enquiry proceedings have been found to have been conducted in proper and legal manner, and when High Court on administrative side as well as on judicial side, has accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer qua the charge nos. 4 to 11 levelled against appellant as “proved”, holding him guilty of having committed “misconduct”, this court was not expected to sit as an appellate authority and revaluate the adequacy or reliability of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer.

Result : Appeal dismissed.