1. Misconduct by a security force constable involving harassment and extortion of a civilian — Disciplinary removal from service — Challenge to removal via writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1264
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
CISF And Others - Appellants
Versus
Santosh Kumar Pandey - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8671 of 2015
Decided on : 16-12-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of case on merits and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence.
(2) Conclusions of fact which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by authorities, should not be interfered with merely because court may have reached at a different conclusion.
(1) Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of case on merits and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence.
(2) Conclusions of fact which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by authorities, should not be interfered with merely because court may have reached at a different conclusion.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Action
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Direction for reinstatement in service with 50% back wages – Removal from CISF on allegation of misconduct – A holistic and pragmatic approach is required, especially when Evidence Act is not applicable and even where Evidence Act applies – Enactment gives discretion on matters of evaluation, analysis and appraisal of evidence – Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of case on merits and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence unless court finds that findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass muster of Wednesbury Principles – Power of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence – Writ Court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of decision making process which requires satisfaction that competent authorities have held inquiry as per prescribed procedure and have duly applied their mind to evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and relevant factors have been cogitated – Conclusions of fact which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by authorities, should not be interfered with merely because court may have reached at a different conclusion – Order of removal from service passed by disciplinary authority upheld. (Paras 10, 17 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal, which has been preferred by Central Industrial Security Force and two others, takes exception to the judgment dated 16.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, whereby High Court of Gujarat has allowed the writ petition preferred by Respondent No.1 and directed his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of his removal.
Findings of Court:
Facts in the present case are startling and distressing. Respondent No. 1 is not a police officer, and even police officers are not required to do moral policing, ask for physical favour or material goods.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of the inquiry report and removal order based on inconsistent evidence and the subsequent withdrawal of the complainant's complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 12 )
3. The High Court improperly reappreciated evidence; the findings of the disciplinary authority were supported by witness testimony and the respondent's own admissions. (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 focuses on the decision-making process and legality, not the reappreciation of evidence, unless findings are perverse. (Para 17 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Order of removal from service upheld. (Para 19 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review for High Courts when challenging disciplinary actions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?
Judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process to ensure the inquiry followed prescribed procedures and the authority applied its mind to relevant material. It is not an adjudication on merits or a reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or legally untenable. (Para 17 )
7. Does the withdrawal of a complaint by the victim exonerate an employee from charges of misconduct in a disciplinary inquiry?
No, a written request to withdraw a complaint does not nullify or exonerate the employee of the charges of misconduct if the evidence on record supports the findings of the disciplinary authority. (Para 14 )
8. How should evidence be evaluated in disciplinary proceedings where the Evidence Act may not strictly apply?
A holistic and pragmatic approach is required. Authorities should account for factual realities and human behavior, exercising discretion in the evaluation, analysis, and appraisal of evidence. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
This appeal, which has been preferred by Central Industrial Security Force1[For short, “CISF”.] and two others, takes exception to the judgment dated 16.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, whereby the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the writ petition preferred by Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey and directed his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of his removal.
2. Respondent No. 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey, who was working as a constable with the CISF, was posted at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township, Vadodara, Gujarat, where he was charge-sheeted vide memorandum dated 28.10.2001 on allegations of misconduct, which allegations we shall refer to in some detail subsequently.
Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey having denied the allegations, Deputy Commandant - N.K. Bharadwaj was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who vide his report dated 28.01.2002 held that the charges levelled against Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey stand proven. Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey made a representation, and thereby questioned the inquiry report and claimed that he should be exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, vide order dated 23.02.2002, agreed that the charges were proved and penalty of removing Respondent No. 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey from service was imposed. Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had preferred an appeal that was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.05.2002. Revision petition filed by the Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2003.
3. These orders, including the inquiry report, were challenged by Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey vide Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, which, vide impugned judgment, has been allowed, as per the directions set out above.
4. The reasoning given by the High Court for allowing the Writ Petition is to be found in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, which for convenience, are reproduced below:
“8. We have gone through the evidence came on record. Mahesh B. Chaudhry who is the complainant gave his statement on 27.10.2001 before the CISF Officer. In his examination, the complainant has narrated the aforesaid story, but in the cross examination, he had admitted that the petitioner has returned the watch and he has got his article back and he does not want to take any action against the petitioner. He has also admitted in the question put by the Inquiry Officer as regards to the illicit demand to spend some time with his fiancée as his fiancée has also seen the incident.
9. (X) 2[Identity suppressed to maintain privacy.] who is fiancée of complainant Mahesh B. Chaudhry has also been examined and she has clearly and categorically stated that she was little aware, but what was told to his fiancée Mahesh, she has not heard. Of course, she saw him giving watch to the petitioner.
10. Indisputably, on going through the entire evidence available on record, entire case against the petitioner rests only on the sole testimony of Mahesh B. Chaudhry-complainant. In our evaluation of evidence of the complainant, his evidence is also not consistent. As per his say, his fiancée has also seen the incident, but his fiancée has clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer that she has not seen the incident. Now, only question remains as regards snatching/taking away watch from the complainant Mahesh B. Chaudhry. In respect of the said allegation also, the evidence on record clearly reveals that watch was already returned and, therefore, even the complainant has given in writing to the official of CISF that his watch is already returned by the present petitioner and, therefore, he does not want to take any action against him and he withdrew the complaint.”
5. In our opinion the reasoning given by the High Court is faulty on both facts and law. To avoid prolixity, as there is a short issue that arises for consideration, we a
