IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 364 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 5, 2011 Udhey Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 7.10.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant, who was working as a Conductor with the Haryana Roadways, was found guilty of fraud and misappropriation. The allegation against the appellant was that he misappropriated the Government fund amounting to ` 40/- and he was also negligent in performance of his duty. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is that the passenger was found travelling without ticket with the connivance of the appellant. The learned Single Judge after noticing the facts LPA No. 364 of 2011 (O&M) briefly has come to the conclusion that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as a Court of Appeal and re- appreciate the evidence or the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid issue has come up before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675. After threadbare analysis of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and considering large number of judicial precedents, their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 38 have, inter alia, recorded the following conclusion: “(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervi- sory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of ap- peal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evi- dence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 2. The aforesaid view has again been reiterated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid judgments that it is only patent error of law apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected by the Court in certiorari jurisdiction. 3. It is also pertinent to notice that in the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512, which is a case of bus conductor from Haryana Roadways itself, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even indirect oral evidence indicting the conductor would not be irrelevant and finding could be based by the Enquiry Officer on such a piece of evidence. In paras 4 and 5 the following observations have been made:- 2 LPA No. 364 of 2011 (O&M) "4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender or independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunals cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halbsbury insist 3 LPA No. 364 of 2011 (O&M) on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence - not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. 5. Reliance was placed, as earlier stated, on the non- compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded by inspectors. These are instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in the violation. In this case, the Inspector tried to get the statements but the passengers declined, the psychology of the latter in such circumstances being understandable, although may not be approved. We cannot hold that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded the order that followed was invalid. Likewise, the re-evaluation of the evidence on the strength of co-conductor's testimony is a matter not for the court but for the administrative 4 LPA No. 364 of 2011 (O&M) tribunal. In conclusion, we do not think the courts below were right in over-turning the finding of the domestic tribunal." (emphasis added) 4. Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in view, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and dismiss the same. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) July 5, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 5