Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and others against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had directed reinstatement of the respondent, Santosh Kumar Pandey, a constable, with 50% back wages. The respondent was charge-sheeted for misconduct on the intervening night of 26-27 October 2001, when he was on night duty at the Greenbelt Area of IPCL Township, Vadodara. The complainant, Mahesh B. Chaudhry, alleged that the respondent questioned him and his fiancée, demanded to spend time with the fiancée, and when refused, forced Chaudhry to hand over his watch. The next day, Chaudhry reported the incident, and the respondent returned the watch after being confronted. The inquiry officer found the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the penalty. The High Court, in writ proceedings, set aside the penalty, holding that the evidence was inconsistent and that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning faulty on facts and law. It noted that the complainant's testimony was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, including the fiancée who saw the watch being handed over. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings. The Court emphasized that the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in departmental inquiries and that a holistic approach is required. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the order of removal from service was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Scope of High Court under Article 226 - The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority, when the findings were based on consistent and credible evidence. (Paras 5, 11-14) B) Evidence - Departmental Inquiry - Applicability of Evidence Act - The Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in departmental inquiries; a holistic and pragmatic approach is required in evaluating evidence, especially in cases involving sensitive matters. (Paras 10, 13) C) Service Law - Misconduct - Demand of Sexual Favor and Extortion - The respondent, a CISF constable, demanded to spend time with the complainant's fiancée and extorted a watch; the disciplinary authority's finding of misconduct was based on consistent testimony of the complainant and other witnesses. (Paras 6-8, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary authority's findings and ordering reinstatement with back wages in a writ petition against a disciplinary order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and restored the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority.
Law Points
- Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural irregularities and perversity
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Evidence Act not strictly applicable in departmental inquiries
- Holistic and pragmatic approach required in evaluating evidence in disciplinary matters
