ivil Appeal No 626 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18 1959 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 922 of 1956
TVR Tatachari and PD Menon for the appellants
K Bhimasankaram and T Satyanarayana for the respondent
April 10
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J
On March 10 1955 the Deputy Inspector General of Police State of Andhra passed an order dismissing the respondent who was a sub inspector of police appointed on probation from service
On appeal to the Inspector General of Police the order was altered into one of removal from service
The respondent then
moved the High Court of Andhra pradesh by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate 27 writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police including his order dated September 24 1955 and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated March 10 1955 and for such other orders as the Court may deem fit
The High Court quashed the two impugned orders
Against the order passed by the High Court this appeal is preferred with special leave
It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts which gave rise to the departmental proceedings against the respondent resulting in his removal from service
The respondent was at the material time in charge of the police station Kodur Visakhapatnam District
On February 18 1954 an offence of house breaking and theft was reported at the police station and was registered on February 191954
It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be the offender
This Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla on March 5 1954 and was handed over to the Village Munsif of Vechalam who in his turn sent Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants V Polayya Vechalapu Simhachalam Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram
It is the case of the State that Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night of March 5 1954 but no written acknowledgment in token of having received Durgalu from the village servants was given by the respondent nor was any entry posted in the station diary and Durgalu was thereafter confined in the police station from the night of March 5 1954 without any order from a Magistrate remanding him to police custody
On March 7 1954 the  respondent entrusted charge of the police station to a head constable and left for Kakinada on casual leave for five days
He returned to Kodur on March 12 1954
After the departure of the respondent 28 some constables arrested one Reddy Simhachalam and brought him to the police station in the evening of March 7 1954
It is the case of the State that as a result of torture by police constables Nos
1199 363 and 662 Reddy Simhachalam became unconscious
The dead body of Reddy Simhachalam was found floating in a well near the police station on the morning of March 9 1954 and an enquiry into the circumstances in which the death took place was commenced by the Revenue Divisional Officer Narsipatnam
In the enquiry Durgalu made a statement that he had witnessed the torture of Reddy Simhachalam in the police station by the three constables
Police constables Nos
1199 363  and 662 were then charged before the Sub Magistrate Chodavaram for offences under sections 3042 and 201 read with section 114 IP Code for causing the death of Reddy Simhachalam by torturing him and for causing disappearence of the evidence of his death
Before the Sub Magistrate Durgalu retracted his earlier statement and stated that the statement that he was an eye witness to the torture of Reddy Simhachalam was untrue and that he was induced to make that statement by the police
He deposed that he had escaped from the custody of the village servants before he reached the police station Kodur on March 5 1954 and that he was re arrested on March 8 1954
The Sub Magistrate discharged the police constables holding that once Durgalu the only eye witness turned hostile there was no direct evidence on which even a prima facie case could be made out against them
The record of the case before the Sub Magistrate was called by the Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam suo motu
The Sessions Judge held it proved on the evidence that Durgalu was arrested on March 5 1954 and was taken to the police station Kodur and was wrongfully confined since that date in the police station and the story of Durgalu before the Sub Magistrate that after he was arrested on March 5 1954 and was taken to the 29 Kodur village on that very day he had escaped from custody and that he remained in his village Vechalam could not be believed
A departmental enquiry was commenced in May 1954 against the respondent
The charge in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent after it was amended ran as follows  Reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining a KD Chandana Durgalu accused in Cr
No1754 of Kodur Police Station from the night of 5 3 54 to 7 3 1954 in the Police Station when he went on five days casual leave   To the charge was appended a statement of facts reciting inter aria that Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif Kaligotla and was handed over to the Village Munsif Vechalam that Durgalu was sent by the latter with the written report with the assistance of village servants that on the same night the latter handed over Durgalu to the respondent in the police station Kodur at about 12 mid night with the report of the Village Munsif and demanded acknowledgment but the acknowledgment was refused by the respondent and that the respondent did not mention these facts in any of the station records and wrongfully confined Durgalu in the police station till March 7 1954 when he proceeded on casual leave for five days
This the statement of facts added constituted grave and reprehensible conduct and hence the charge
The respondent submitted an explanation in which he submitted that Durgalu was not handed over to him on March S 1954 as alleged nor at any time before he proceeded on March 7 1904 on casual leave
His plea was that when he proceeded on leave he entrusted charge of the police station to the head constable leaving instructions to trace Durgalu and to take action
30 The Deputy Superintendent of Police held the departmental enquiry and submitted his report on October 27 1954 setting out the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the State and the respondent and summing up the conclusion by reciting that the evidence in the case for the State made out a strong case against the respondent that it was established that Durgalu was arrested on March 5 1954 and was sent by the Village Munsif to Vechalam who in his turn sent him with the village servants to the police station Kodur and Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night of March 5 1954 that the story of Durgalu that after he was arrested on March 5 1954 he escaped from the custody of the village servants and was again arrested on March 8 1954 was false
The report then concluded All these facts go to show that he was arrested on the 5th without a shadow of doubt but if the judgment of the learned Court which is based on the retracted statement of Durgalu is considered the sacred truth  the delinquent may have benefit of doubt
 This report was considered by the authority competent to impose punishment and a provisional conclusion that the respondent merited punishment of dismissal for the charges held established by the report was recorded
A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the respondent and he was called upon to submit his representation against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him
The respondent submitted his representation which was considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Northern Range Waltair
That Officer referred to the evidence of witnesses for the State about the arrest of Durgalu on March 5 1954 and the handing over of Durgalu to the respondent on the same day
He observed that the evidence of Durgalu that after he was arrested on March 5 1954 he had made good his escape and was again arrested on March 8 1954 could not be accepted
Holding that the charge 31 against the respondent was serious and had on the evidence been adequately proved in his view the only punishment which the respondent deserved was of dismissal from the police force
In appeal the Inspector General of Police accepted the evidence of the witnesses who had deposed that they had handed over Durgalu to the respondent on March 5 1954
In his view the respondent had betrayed gross dishonesty and lack of character in falsifying the records by omitting to write what he had done and what happened in the police station thereby proving himself thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy and showing himself unfit to hold the responsible post of a SubInspector of police and that his records as a probationary Sub Inspector of police are generally unsatisfactory
and he has earned a reputation for inefficiency and lack of interest in work for weakness in dealing with his subordinates which are all attributes that militate against his becoming useful SubInspector of Police
 But taking into consideration his young age and inexperience the Inspector General of Police reduced the order of dismissal into one for removal from service
In the departmental proceeding a simple question of fact fell to be determined viz
whether Durgalu was arrested on March 5 1954 and was delivered over by the village servants to the respondent at police station Kodur on the night of March 5 1954
There is no dispute that Durgalu was arrested on March 5 1954 and was sent by the Village Munsif Vechalam with his report to the police station Kodur
The only question in dispute was whether Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on March 5 1954 as stated by the witnesses for the State
The case of the State was accepted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who passed the order of dismissal and the Inspector 32 General of Police in appeal
But the High Court declined to accept this view of the evidence
In so doing with respect it must be observed the High Court assumed to itself jurisdiction which it did not possess
The High Court was of the view that the conclusion of the departmental authorities was vitiated because the Enquiry Officer dealt with the evidences of witnesses for the State and the witnesses for the respondent separately and the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police did not in recording their orders refer to all the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer and they failed to appreciate the full significance of the rule concerning the onus of proving
The rule meant that everything essential to the establishment of a charge lies on the person who seeks to establish the charge
It further means that the two sets of evidence in the case must not be examined separately in order to ascertain first whether those for establishing the charge have proved it and then to examine the defence in order to see how far the conclusions are unjustified
The better approach which has been described as the golden thread in the web of criminal law is to examine the law the whole evidence in order to ascertain how far the liability of the person proceeded against has been established beyond reasonable doubt
The High Court then observed that ordinarily the conclusions on questions of fact by a body or tribunal in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution are accepted by the High Court but that general rule does not apply whenever an important principle of jurisprudence is discarded in reaching such findings and since the fundamental rule that a person should be punished only after the entire evidence in the case had been considered and he is found liable beyond reasonable doubt had not been followed the conclusions of the departmental authorities were vitiated
The High Court again observed that the orders passed by the departmental authorities were vitiated because of two 33 other matters i that the Enquiry Officer declined to summon and examine two witnesses for the defence even though a request in that behalf was made and ii that there was no charge against the respondent of falsifying the record by omitting to write what he had done or what happened in the police station and he had not been given an opportunity of meeting such a charge and therefore the respondent had no fair hearing consistent with the principles of natural justice
There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied and if that rule be not applied the High Court in a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid
The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant iris concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated
Where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence
The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the 34 rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing 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 or on similar grounds
But the departmental authorities are if the enquiry is otherwise properly held the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their 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 proceeding for a writ under article 226 of the Constitution
The Enquiry Officer had accepted the evidence of witnesses for the Sate that Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on March 5 1954 and the observation that the respondent may have the benefit of doubt if the judgment of the Magistrate is considered sacred truth appears to have been made in a somewhat sarcastic vein and does not cast any doubt upon the conclusion recorded by him
The Enquiry Officer appears to have stated that the judgment of the Magistrate holding a criminal trial against a public servant could not always be regarded as binding in a departmental enquiry against that public servant
in so stating the Enquiry Officer did not commit any error
The first ground on which the High Court interfered with the order of the punishing authorities is therefore wholly unsustainable
The two other grounds on which the High Court also based its conclusion namely refusal to summon and examine witnesses for the respondent and holding the respondent guilty of a charge of which he had no 35 notice are equally without substance
It appears that the respondent desired to examine police constables Nos 178 506 and 569 to prove that Durgalu was not in the lock up till March 8 1954
Police constable No 506 was examined as a witness for the respondent and the Enquiry Officer has not accepted his evidence
The other two witnesses were neither summoned nor examined but it appears from the record that on September 20 1954 the respondent promised to produce the witnesses whom he had cited in his defence
At the hearing dated September 26 1954 three witnesses were examined by the respondent and the respondent was given another opportunity to secure the presence of the remaining defence witnesses
On September 27 1954 police constable 506 was examined and it appears that the respondent expressed his desire not to examine any more witnesses
In the proceeding of the Enquiry Officer there is a note that your defence witnesses have been examined and such documents you required have been produced and exhibited
The respondent subscribed his signature in acknowledgment of the correctness of that recital
He did not raise any objection in the representation made by him before the Deputy Inspector General of Police when notice was issued on him to show cause why he should not be punished
In the memo of appeal to the Inspector General of Police it was submitted by the respondent that the police witnesses were to be summoned by the Enquiry Officer and that he did not summon them
It was also submitted that the statement signed by the respondent was only in respect of private witnesses and not police witnesses
But the endorsement made by the Enquiry Officer is not susceptible of any such interpretation which refers to all witnesses for the respondent
The record does not show that an application for summoning the police witnesses was made and the Enquiry Officer in breach of the rules declined to summon them
We are in the light of this evidence 36 of the view that the respondent did not after the examination of police constable No 506 desire to examine the two police constables Nos 178 and 569 whom he
originally wanted to examine
It was next urged that the findings recorded were not in respect of the charge which the respondent was called upon to answer
The charge against the respondent was that he had wrongfully confined Durgalu on March 5 1954 to March 7 1954 in the police station
In the statement of facts which accompanied the charge sheet it was stated in express terms that the respondent had not recorded in any of the diaries of the police station that Durgalu was handed over to him on March 5 1954
The charge and the statement of facts form part of a single document on the basis of which proceedings were started against the respondent and it would be hypercritical to proceed  on the view that though the respondent was expressly told in the statement of facts which formed part of the charge sheet that he had failed to record that Durgalu was handed over to him that ground of reprehensible conduct  was not included in the charge and on that account the enquiry was vitiated
No objection appears to have been raised before the Deputy Inspector General or even the Inspector General of police that there was infirmity in the charge on that account and that infirmity had prejudiced the respondent in the enquiry
The respondent had full notice of the charge against him and he examined witnesses in support of his defence and made several argumentative representations before the Deputy Inspector General the Inspector General of Police and the Government of Andhra Pradesh
In our Judgment the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular and were not vitiated on account of any breach of the rules of natural justice
The conclusions of the departmental 37 officers were fully borne out by the evidence before them and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order either on the ground that the approach to the evidence was not consistent with the approach in a criminal case nor on the ground that the High Court would have on that evidence come to a different conclusion
The respondent had also ample opportunity of examining his witnesses after he was informed of the charge against him
The conclusion recorded by the punishing authority was therefore not open to be canvassed nor was the liability of the respondent to be punished by removal from service open to question before the High Court
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside
The petition filed by the respondent is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
The order as to costs passed by the High Court will stand
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent was a Sub Inspector of Police in charge 01 a police station
One D suspected of having committed an offence was apprehended by the village Munsif and was sent to the police station
He was handed over to the respondent
The respondent declined to give a written acknowledgment of having received 1and made no entries in the station diary regarding him
D was confined in the police station for several days without being produced before a Magistrate
A departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining D
The defence set up by him was that D had never been handed over to him because he had escaped while on his way to the police station
The Deputy Superintendent of Police who held the enquiry found him guilty of the charge
The Deputy Inspector General of Police gave him a show cause notice and after considering his explanation ordered that he be dismissed from service
On appeal the Inspector General of Police modified the order of dismissal and converted it into one for removal from service
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the order and the High Court quashed the orders
Held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders
The High Court was wrong in its view that in a departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal trial that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied the high court could set aside the order of the departmental authority in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution
The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding a departmental enquiry 26 it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held by a competent authority and according to the procedure prescribed and whether the rules of natural justice have been observed
Where there is some evidence which the authority has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence
If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be convassed before the High Court
In the present case the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular no rules of natural justice were voilated the conclusions were borne out by the evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity of examining his witnesses
Therefore the conclusions of the punishing authority were not open tO be questioned before the High Court