Important Point—In exercise of power of judicial review, Writ Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal and record different findings from findings recorded in domestic enquiry.

1. Petitioner was regularly appointed as Conductor on 10.01.1990. While working as Conductor, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him resulted in imposing the punishment of removal from service by order dated 30.12.1993. The reviewing authority considered the review petition sympathetically and in order to give him further opportunity, he ordered reappointment as a fresh Conductor duly dispensing with the earlier service vide order dated 16.08.1994 and accordingly the petitioner was reappointed and is continuing in service. This Writ Petition is filed challenging that portion of the order of the reviewing authority in appointing him as a fresh Conductor.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation has raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to him, the order of reviewing authority granting reappointment as a fresh candidate by order dated 16.08.1994 is assailed for the first time in this Writ Petition instituted after 20 years. Petitioner has enjoyed all benefits flowing there from all these years without a protest. He would contend that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and latches in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

3.1. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of fresh appointment is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. No such punishment is prescribed in Discipline and Appeal Regulations. As held by this Court in K.C. Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad [2007 (5) ALD 416], disciplinary authority or higher authority in exercise of disciplinary control cannot impose punishment which is not prescribed in the Regulations.

3.2. He would further submit that the claim in the Writ Petition cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, when the action assailed is ex facie illegal. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.1224 of 2011 and batch, dated 19.11.2015.

4. A bare perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the material papers enclosed, it is not in dispute that the order of reviewing authority was made on 16.08.1994 i.e., 20 years prior to the institution of the Writ Petition. Except for contending that the learned Single Judge of this Court in K.C. Narayana has taken the view that imposing punishment, which is not prescribed in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations as illegal, no other averments made to explain why he has accepted the order of Reviewing authority and enjoyed all benefits flowing there from without a protest and kept quiet for 20 years. No valid reasons are assigned or justifiable cause shown to institute this writ petition after 20 years.

5. In exercise of power of judicial review, writ Court can test the validity of a decision of the statutory authority within the well laid down parameters of judicial review. The remedy under Article 226 is an extra-ordinary remedy and equitable. Grant of relief to an aggrieved person is discretionary in the hands of writ Court.

6. In Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal [(1995) 2 SCR 1 = AIR 1955 SC 423], Supreme Court delineated scope of exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court held:

“14. That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not, and should not, act as courts of appeal under Article 226. Their powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily; and one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substanti