Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
N. GANGARAJ – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8071 OF 2014
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Service Law – Dismissal – From post of Police Inspector following bribery charges – Tribunal set aside order of punishment by holding that criminal court on same set of facts has not placed reliance on deposition of witnesses, therefore, it was not proper on part of Disciplinary Authority to rely upon such evidence to come to conclusion that respondent has demanded bribe – Interference in order of punishment by Tribunal as affirmed by High Court suffers from patent error – Power of judicial review is confined to decision-making process – Power of judicial review conferred on constitutional court or on Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority-While reappreciating evidence High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings – Inquiry Officer has appreciated evidence and returned finding that respondent is guilty of misconduct – Disciplinary authority agreed with findings of enquiry officer and had passed order of punishment – Appeal before State Government was also dismissed – Once evidence has been accepted by departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, Tribunal or High Court could not interfere with findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if Courts are Appellate Authority – Orders passed by Tribunal and High Court set aside and order of punishment imposed restored. (Paras 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
State is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 25th August, 2011 whereby challenge to an order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal1 on 12th March, 2009 setting aside the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed upon the respondent remained unsuccessful.
Findings of the Court:
Disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by re-appreciating evidence as if Courts are the Appellate Authority.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Gupta, J.
The State is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 25th August, 2011 whereby the challenge to an order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal[for short, Tribunal'] on 12th March, 2009 setting aside the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed upon the respondent remained unsuccessful.
2. The respondent was working as a Police Inspector at Mysore from 31st July, 1997 to 31st October, 1998. On the complaint of one Nirmala, the Lokayukta Police had laid a trap. On the basis of a criminal complaint lodged, Crime No. 15/1998 was registered against respondent in Mysore Lokayukta Police Station under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. A charge sheet against the respondent was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Mysore for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said criminal trial resulted in the acquittal of the respondent.
3. In addition to the criminal trial, the respondent was also proceeded against for the misconduct in departmental proceedings. The respondent was served with a charge sheet. The respondent faced departmental proceedings on the following two charges:
"1. You, the Accused Police Officer, Sri. N. Gangaraj, while working as Police Inspector in City Crime Record Bureau of the office of the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City from 31/07/97 to 31/10/98, one Miss. Chandrika resident of Nandanavana, Ulsoor, Bangalore City, has lodged a complaint dated 08/08/98 with Sri. Kempaiah, Commissioner of Police, Mysore City, against one Mr. Mahendra of Indiranagar, Bangalore, stating that he promised to marry her and taken her in car No. KA-05-9795 along with his friends and raped her. She has requested therein to take action against Mr. Mahendra and his friends. The Commissioner of Police, Mysore City has sent the said petition to Police Inspector, City Crime Branch, Mysore for enquiry and to send the report. You being a responsible Police Officer, shown utter misconduct in managing to obtain a Xerox copy of the said petition through illegal means and contacting the wife of the Driver of above said vehicle demanded illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- and negotiating the deal for Rs.20,000/- with instructions to the party to pay the amount on 27/08/98 at your residence.
2. Even though the petition of Miss. Chandrika, lodged with the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City was not at all concerned to you, you managed to get it's copy with ulterior motto through illegal means and contacted Mrs. B.J. Nirmala wife of Mr. Sampathkumar, Driver of car No. KA-05-9795 by sending Mr. Puttaraju CHC 141 and Mr. Shivakumar CPC 22 to Bangalore and also contacted the above parties over telephone and demanded Rs.40,000/- as illegal gratification for not including the car in the case. When the parties were not agreed to pay, you negotiated the amount to Rs.20,000/-. Being a responsible Police Officer and knowing fully well that accepting illegal gratification is against to Rule 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, you behaved in a way to bring down the prestige of the department, showing dereliction of duty, utter misconduct and an at of unbecoming of a Police Officer as well as a Government Servant."
4. The respondent denied the charges. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Circle, Mangalore was appointed as the Inquiry Officer (IO). The IO returned a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent have been proved. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent. Considering the contentions of the respondent, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police passed an order of dismissal of the respondent from service on 30th September, 2005. The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as the period of suspension only. The respondent filed an appeal before the Government which came to be dismissed on 8th September, 2006.
5. Aggrieved a
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
