The High Court has limited scope of interference in departmental enquiries and cannot act as an appellate authority. The adequacy of evidence in a departmental enquiry is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 26/02/2007 passed by State of Madhya Pradesh, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4th January, 2006 by which the petitioner has been saddled with punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

2. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on three charges. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not found proved, whereas Charge No. 3 was found proved. In fact, the order of punishment is based on no evidence and Charge No. 3 is dependent upon Charge Nos. 1 and 2 and if Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not found proved, then the authorities have committed a glaring mistake in holding that Charge No. 3 was proved. It is further submitted that it is a case of no evidence, therefore, the order of punishment is vitiated.

3. Per contra, the petition is opposed by the Counsel for the State. It is submitted by Shri Deepak Khot that Charge No. 3 is independent to Charge No. 1 and 2. T Charges No. 1 and 2 were in respect of non-examination of an injured (who subsequently died) whereas Charge no. 3 relates to manipulation of official record to show that the injured was hospitalized.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Before considering the facts of the case, this Court thinks it apposite to consider the scope of interference by this Court in the departmental matters.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, by order dated 25th November, 2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3820 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32580 of 2017) has held as under:-

12. Discussion and Analysis

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the record, and written submissions filed on their behalf.

12.1. We will first discuss the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings. It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led before the enquiry officer.

We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental enquiry against a public servant.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, a three judge bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however interfere where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. If however the enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition.

These principles were further reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao. T