The division judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari of the apex court in the case of CISF and Others Vs Santosh Kumar Pandey held that the conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached a different conclusion.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that respondent no. 1 was working as a constable with the CISF and was posted in Gujarat where he was charge-sheeted on the allegations of misconduct. Moreover, Respondent No.1 made a representation, and thereby questioned the inquiry report and claimed that he should be exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, agreed that the charges were proven and the penalty of removing Respondent No. 1 from service was imposed. Respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal that was rejected by the appellate authority. The revision petition filed by Respondent No.1 –was rejected. The high court allowed the writ petition and the reasoning for the same are given in para 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse, or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles. The power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enable the exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence.
The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with an examination of the decision-making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated.
The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached a different conclusion. Thus, an error of law is apparent in the reasoning vide paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. The order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority is upheld.
CASE NAME- CISF and Others Vs Santosh Kumar Pandey
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8671 OF 2015
CORUM- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
DATE- 16.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
