Back
ANIL R.DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
P. Gunasekaran – Respondent
Yes, the provided legal document confirms that the High Court, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, cannot:
Key supporting principles from the document:
The High Court cannot act as a second court of appeal or appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings, including by re-appreciating evidence before the enquiry officer [1000546870012]. Its jurisdiction is limited to checking procedural aspects, such as whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed prescribed procedure, adhered to natural justice, or involved extraneous considerations, arbitrariness, or no evidence at all (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Once findings are based on some legal evidence and the enquiry is proper, the High Court shall not interfere with conclusions, assess evidence reliability, or review factual errors (!) (!) (!) . In this case, the finding on Charge No. I attained finality after acceptance by the disciplinary authority, Tribunal, and High Court in prior litigation, barring re-opening [1000546870020][1000546870021][1000546870022].
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. Respondent, while working as Deputy Office Superintendent, Central Excise Third Division, Coimbatore was arrested by Police in a criminal case involving cheating and extortion of money. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 143, 319 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) against the respondent. Separate departmental proceedings were also initiated against him under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
3. Following are the three articles of charge:
“ARTICLE-I
That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, Deputy Office Superintendent (Level-II) (under suspension of Central Excise, Headquarters Office, Coimbatore while working in the Valuation Cell, Hqrs. Office, Coimbatore came to the office on 23.11.1992, in the morning and signed the attendance register, in token of having come to the office and left office without permission and came to the office the next day, i.e., on the morning of 24.11.1992, and affixed his initials in the departure column against the dated 23.11.1992 and willfully falsified the official register. He has thereby committed gross misconduct an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
