1 \ ». \ v ^-^^ v^'.-n . . BSPORE 7HE HIGH COURT OF MAPPIYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR 4^56 Wri fc Petl tion No. ' __" Z /94 Pefeitioner Respondents Kanha1ya Lal Mebar V/s Registerar^ Hlgh Court and anofeher c^r^ ^ ^^- / fc Defcails of pefcition 1 Parfciculars o£ th@ Petitioner $ Kanhaiya Lal Mehar son o£ late Damrudhar Mehar^ aged about 44 years^ occupation ex employee on the posb of Process Writer Civil Court, Disfericfe and Sesslons Judge^ Raigarh^ residenfc of Chakradhamagar^ Mohalla Sefchi Nagar^ near Shlv Mandir^ Raigarh^ M^Pe 2 Parfciculars of fche Respondents s -% 1 The Registrar^ High Courfc of Madhya Pradesli Jabalpur< 2 The Dlstrict Judge^ Ralgarh, MeP. .\jy40| ..^:^-s^ .^€'" (*@*3) atMs9TfQ : <'4»3Fno$ ^'&yit glpsfiST^^tmo ?o •p31©l2»£> .3E6,3WS^e{^ : V^^V^/.yXStS'S^^^- ,3©•^CIWQ '^^U. " 2. "'(*'<•%•) JE»df&q^^ ' ^-A^'tt&rHl :' .-:; '^ ;::-^ •'4*H 30 .t%..:SQll30 .X$^-»®TS©^tt6n03q^ ••^•H ^o •^'ft&s' tl©'pt "r; .\. ^^ ar ^d[SW. ¥.. AF^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATnSGARH: BILASPXJR i^ Siag^e Bench: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrt, J. W. P. No. 4296 of 1994 Petitioiier : Kanhaiya Lal Mehar Versus Respondents Registrar, High Court & ofhers ^- Post for order on ^ December, 2006 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPXJR Sia^e Beach: Hon^ble Shri Satish K. Ag?iihotri, J. W. P. No. 4296 of 1994 Petitioner : Kanhaiya Lal Mehar Versus Respondents : Registrar, High Court & ofhers Shri Awadh Tripafhi, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Maauidra Shrivastava, Senior cozinsel wifh Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the rcspondent No. 1. None appears for tlie rcspondents No. 2 aiid 3, ORDBR •-K ( 5 Decembe?, 2006) 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner chaUeuges fhe validity offhe impugned order dated 8.2.1993 (Annexure A/14), whercby the petitioner was retired compulsonly and tlie appeUate oider dated 8th Jzine^ 1994 (Aiinexure A/16) disniissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The iadisputable facts iu briefare that the petitioner was working on fhe post of Ainiii (Nazarat) in the District CivU Court, Raigarh. The petitioner made complaiats to fhe Distdct aad Sessions Judge, Raigarh by letter dated 21.11.1989 (Annexnrc A/1} aad by letter dated 15.3.1990 (Annexure A/2) against the Nazir, Shri Nandlal Mourya to fhe effect fhat fhe Nazir was unnecessaiy haiussiag the petitioner. The petitioner further made coniplaiiits against the then Nazir, Shri Naiidlal Mouiya to Hon?ble the Chief \^ Jiistice, High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpnr (M,P.) also on 24.3.1991 (Annexurc A/3) and 25.3.1991 (Annexure A/4}. The petitioner was served a niemo dated 17th July, 1992 (Annexure A/5) zinder signatare of the steno to fhe District aud Sessions Judge, Raigarh, which accordiag to the petitioner was received on 20.7,1992. The said memo states as iiuder:- 1, Wfwn and to whom tfze petitioner made a CQmplaint csgcnnst Shri Na?idlal Mourya, Districf Nc^ir? 2. Whether the oomplaint dnted 24,3.1991 agmnst Shri Ncmdlal Mourya, Distfict Nassir was sent to Honyble the Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Prcsdesh at Jabcdpur through proper channel? The petitioiier szibiiiitted his reply vide letter dated 24.7.1992 (Annexure A/6) giviiig details of fhe coniplamts and fdrther statmg that it was not necessaiy to send the coinplaint to Hon^le fhe ChiefJustice fhrough proper channel as tlie copy ofthe saisie was endorsed to fhe District and Sessions Judge, Raigarh also. 3. The petitioiier was sei-ved a meisio dated 5th August, 1992 (Annexure A/7) along wifli a charge-sheet dated 5th August, 1992 (Annexure A/8) contamiag 10 charges. The contamiag 10 charges arc as under :- stl~ '^ f^ ^114<t»1 ^?Pf ^P^ ^^TT^ 21 r^«11"«*» 25-10-89 ^ 5TCT 15 ^f^T^^r <Mt^»*t^ ^fN t^[ ^t 7lf sftl ^ITTT M^<;t ^f f^^l'* 26-10-89 ^t ^ra ^Pf f^ ufpff &TT tR^ ^PT ~SSVt ^<H4l ^T ull4>< ^ft ^cf 1SRrR. ^11^1*1 ^T^? ^ ^TT®T ^FW <ll"ll<Nld ^ 7^ ^I^ 'zrrar ^i^j>i^<ia 1^ ^aFife^H sft ^ l^ <frt;i^^uT t i |^ InMitbtb N^fctlr ^ln Iht^ J^^L ^fc h-b^Sk DJhl^lblh- hS^tt h.^l*lk ^^ h<^ Ifl^It fetiafeK Ufe hteaUt l^y^ l^y L6-£-frZ tt»jl*y l&h DhKbl^j J^l^feA ^fe ^JhteIth-lh^ hS^Tt h^Mh ^hll^ t^ 312. -8 ( ht^ InMa.ltKt* ^tfe ^ftIA^Pk 1A .J11&^11& hU£ ^ldLli fi^, ^fe li;J^t ^fc l&^U? ^isy*AJ ^blb B^ ^hll^ Nh ^lln h<y I^l^y ^? ^IN(h ^'(t* ?l<hnt 1^15 Mnjll* IPlnj ^4» OB-Z-Ol 4>jlAy ^<bhlK? ^ ^fc. -i j lt?<y l*h|Aa(\ ^s. jl&^US ^. Vilfe^. Oayb ^hlfe Mtt>R ^ 1 ^IXd> j^l* J?l(l» ^Khl^ ^<t>^ Dl'a^hPk Ml bhft hU& ^h I ll'S Ifelj. lh<y Dl^y ^ ^txa* j^ |^iM»y y-hfe pl(K ^lthHk 1X19 ^ It^t ^k ^U^,t £^^l<h ^ °il»bl^ |(t»Pjlh !kltt* Jt> ^l^bl^ ^^h b|A|t?lh^ ^tfe 0661.-Z-01. kh 0661.-Z-6 '0661-Z-8 ebjl-bj IM9 4> j?y* l*»||*»bl> (Jfe Mc^ll* Itainj ^tbhlfe ^. afe —9 111% ^. 1&&JAK? M3t>t?o Kbhll? ^ jJfeJ^jl»k t?»*l^ tt> Mln I ^ ^efo £&LJ5: l^^B. N<btS!»Pj t»b^»]H t?^(M^ bh ^ ^><b ^ ^ h<^ l^bJS\ fcl^ ^ ^&h ^t?l<t»iy fejbi jj'eiefej^ljs hlJ£ <^ Stt -S I ^ InMalbtb ^ '^ ^tb Ifr^ |jt»kht ^^ £^ ^hSB. Bal6. Info^Pyh te^fe ?th<^ -/OOL SlhDjn ^ ^cbSlb lcbl^j^ll^ J^ °»lrbl)k 'l»lh.^te ^Mlnl- hU£ <^ ^fc -fr 1 ys (pfc?h itai^ j^. ^lb^leb l^blhay ^h ^S IRlh [3 J^l* VAy»i^ 1jt» ^Mb ya^b In^let* ebfrln] ^ ^^> ^> ll*bT^ |^ ?'?» * IPU»lt^ ^B. Mt6JSh 2^±Lk^. J^ JSfeJjL ^l ^hl^K^ ^lln !MS ^iaibih^ hll?» ^ ^Il -S I ^S J^. 21t3MtlS M& ^ a*.ll*^J Dfcpk hlKN <yte«^ 'lfe^l bb^DJK fi^HJS lcfc ^jjn llx^j ht^j pl(t> ^ljn (tfi ^lebiy^(^ lA.t»T?ltbl!s J^ Ibl^Sth l»lf» ^ct» 68-OL-9Z tt>jl*^J ^hll^ ey 312. -Z ^•% ^1 r"c s"l •V o*, 9— ^n? ^ ^^r f^i*i^d ^f ^ft -t-4did ^nf^ ^ aim^ 3R7fcT sit? ft®2TrsrNN <7i«ii4 i 10- -SS^ ^ 3fW^ ^1*1^^ ^Tsf f^TT^ 24-3-91 ^' ^iofricfl<i l^cTr ^iprNhr. ^w^ ^R ^^TST yf f^Nt ^t t uit W^ «fe4t^ut t 1 4. The petitioner subraitted his reply to fhe above stated charge-sheet, denyiag all fhe aUegations vide letter dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure A/9). The petitiouer wrote aa application to tlie District aiid Sessions Judge, Raigarh on 26.8.1992 for szipply offonowiag dwumente. The Ust ofdcx'uments are as under :- "i. vg f^ ^ii^n^ uiN ^S 4<dt^uiT ^t ^t ^f q r WT^r 41Kit^T ^t ';T^c[ ^^PT ^FT^ ^t ^W ^ j 2. ^I^ f^ f^IW 25/10/89 ^' 26/10/89 ^Pf T^r^ %"o 21 ^'. ?iNcr Wsff ^t ';T^cT 1 3. 'Sf^ ^ ^Kf^a uff^ ^f uu^<oar ^t. 3a1^WT^t ^t yRi^4'i 7ra^ri 4. ff^ ^^ I^Tcnr ^nf^ ^T l^i*t^d ^ra ^ Wt^ 20/11/89 ^t ^^1 5. srr^ftreTT ^re^T ^T fciRaa f^i'fti'iia ^f r^iftp ^rf^r ^t ^r^c?i 6. ^i^ l^? l^'ii-spft^r ^cft ^re^t <f^t^^ f^-Tf^ 07/02/90 ^ 10/02/90 ^^. ^ Wt'S ^Fd I 7. ^T? ^ f^rf^ 26/10/89 TTTO ST^pse ^t ^ Wt€.^ ^S^V 3Pft;T ^ PtiKt<Tl <iRl^< ^cft '{(^1^^ ^ ^aPf TTsT^ ^f 1tft^ ^?rff 'T^ ^t ^^pT l 8. ^ft ^O^tO^ ^t, '*^PI^ 'lvrfKd O.I.C. ^t ^ ^lMlt^d ^, ^lt^ ^fte ^' ^dT ':TTf^ vt4<?ttd ^N SHT ^t f^qt€ ^t ^ sft t^ET IR ^ O.I.C. ^ f^R3T t. ^H^t f^;T ^rf^r Wt€^St (:Tt'e ^fts) »!*<?! i ^^- ...^i.--:-^-s.:^-a ">A The petitioner ftirtfaer wrote an appUcation to fhe Distdct aad Sessions Judge, Raigarh on 26.8. 1992 for supply of foUowmg dociinients. The Mst ofdocum.ents are as zinder:- 1{1. liT^ff ^ '%cT ^clt ^rarft ^l^i^< j 2. W§ff^t ^Pf f^*d j 3- w&ff ^t Pi^^i-fl <f^t<<i1< ^cr 4. <yi^Ri*i ^rg^T ^ft ^Fpf-^ra^ ^pf, ^raf^? in^ff <riutKci ^" 20 ^T? ^N ^W ^ST. ^ST ara^T ^I^ 1 5. <Hl^i«fel ^T^' ^ ^rf^T y. ^ 3RT «fe|<|u||d ^T. 1qt^ VK ^H^ ^T^ t^, ^T^^T 1sr^pr ^^ ^t ^^T ^ 1 5, The Superintendent of the District Cozirt, Raigarh vide his letter dated 2nd September, 1992 (Annexure A/11) aiid A/12) permitted the petitioiier to have. inspection of aU fhe docuisients except dociinients siientioned at item No. 4 aad 5 as requtred by his appUcation dated 26.8.1992. With regard to reqiiirement of docuBients contauied at item No. 4 aiid 5, the petitioner was informed to give reasons asto why the said docunients are rcqziired for fhe purpose of fhe departmental enquiry. In response to fhe comLDiuuicatioii dated 2nd Septeniber, 1992, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 5.9.1992 (Annexure A/13) submitted fhat fhe papei^ mentioned at iteiii No. 4 aiid 5 may be produced at fhe tmie of examiEiation ofthe process servers. The enquiry was held ia presence offlie petitionen On the basis ofthe enquiry, fhe District aad Sessions Judge, Raigarh coiiiniunicated fiiidiags of fhe departmental enqiiiry with puiiishment holding that no second show-cause is necessary under Article 311 (2) of the Constitiitiou of India. 6 6. In the present case, ptinishnient of compulsoiy retirement from. seivice was imposed on fhe basis ofproved charges No. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 aad 10 vide fhe mipugned order dated 8.2.1993 (Annexiirc A/14). 7. The petitioiier preferrcd an appeal dated 12,3.1993 (Annexure A/15) before fhe Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court, after haviag exaniiaed an appesd fUed by fhe petitioner, affiroied fhe ozder of fhe District aad Sessions Judge, Raigarh aiid rejected fhe appeal by letter dated 8th June, 1994 (Annexure A/16). 8. The petitioner filed fhis prcsent writ petition chaUengmg the order dated 8.2,1993 (Aunexure A/14) passed by the Distdct and Sessions Judge, Raigarh aiid oixler dated 8th June, 1994 (Annexure A/16) passed by flie High Cozirt of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 9. Shri Awadh Tripatihii, learaed cozinsel appearibig for tiie petitioner would coutend fhat -the mipugned ordei^ dated 8.2.1993 (Aunexure A/14) aiid 8th June, 1994 (Annexure A/16) are bad and vitiated 011 accoiint of fhe fact fhat the petitioner was not served atl the docunients before holdiiig fhe charges agaiiist hiin as proved. Secpndly, the exnployees of Amin (Na^arat) inchidiag Nazir have deUberately isiiplicated ffae petitioiier actuated by matice as several coniplaints werc made agaiast fhe fhen Nazir. 10. Shri MaDihidra Shrivastava, leanied Senior counsel wifh Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learaed counsel for fhe respondent No. 1, per contra, would submit that fhe petitioner was atlowed to have inspectiou of aU fhe documents as required by him. The ^ docuinents as stated m item No. 4 and 5 were also produced beforc the enquiry officer in presence of fhe detmquent eniployee. Thiis, fhe entire case of fhe petitioner that fhese charges were found proved on the basis of no documents, as aU fhe dociiisients were not siipplied to him, is baseless and contrary to records. 11, I have heard leanied coiuisel for fhe parties aiid perused the pleaduigs and records appended thereto. I have gone throzigh fhe euqiiiry proceedings held by flie District and Sessions Judge, Raigarh hmisetf. It is evident that flie petitioner was granted ftill opportunity of hearing and all the docuinents as required him were shown. In the enquiry report, tlie petitioner has not challenged fhe impugned oxders of aiiy other grounds, except fhat fhe dociinients, 011 which reliaace was inade for the purpose of holdiag fhose charges as proved, were not shown to hmi. This is factaally iacorrect aiid has no basis. The petitioner reUed 011 letter dated 2.9.1992, whercby the petitionerwas asked to give reasons asto why item No. 4 and 5 be siipplied to him. In response to that, flie petitiouer vide his letter dated 5,9.1992 clearly stated fhat the docunients mentioned at item No. 4 aad 5, as reqziired by fhe petitioner, niay be produced at the tinie of examination of process server. The docTimente as nieutioned at item No. 4 aad 5, in the letter of tlie petitioner, were produced. The iaspectioas ofaU fhe doczimeuts were doue 011 23.9.1992 froni 1.30 p.ni. to 4.15 ia fhe ofl5ce ofthe Stipermtendent, fhereafter, on 25.9.1992 froni 2.30 to 4.00 p.ni. The rcgister contaiaing details ofduties of process seiver in tlie year 1990-91, 91-92 and 92-93 (1993-94) was also showii to the petitioner. p^s£- ^. 'y, 8 12. It is weU setfled principles oflaw fhat the Coiirt, while exercisiag its power of judicial review caa go iato fhe decision niakmg process, but not fhe decision itself. lu fhe present case, no perversity, iUegaIity, irreguladty and ioipropriety is afleged aiid found in fhe decision inaking process. The petitioner was punished with compulsory retirement. 13. The petitioner was holdiag fhe post of AJBISI (Najarat) iii fhe Distdct Civfl Cozirt. The post aiid rcsponsibility of the petitioner hivolves faifh of pubUc in the administration ofjzistice and fhe same depends 011 all the ofl5cers and eniployees, who are iiivolved ui fhe process. The role of Amia (Nazarat) is equaBy inore miportant as he has to ensiire that proper service is made on the contestuig parfies. The job of flie petitioner is a niatter of tnist and fhe charges, which has been found proved agaiiist fhe petitioner, are gruve in nature aad the sanie taiitanioiuit to grave misconduct. 14, The Supreme Court m tlie case of Uaioa of ladia Vs. Parma Kassda1 observed as under:- "27........It is appropriate to remeiaber that the power to mipose penalty 011 a delmqzient ofiicer is conferred on tlie conipetent aiifhority eifher by aii Act of legislature or niles made under fhe proviso to Article 309 ofthe Constitution. If there has been aa enquiiy consistent wifh the rules aad in accordaace wifh prmciples of natural justice what punishxnent would meet flie ends of justice is a matter exclusively within fhe jurisdiction of fhe conipetent authority. If the penalty can lawfuUy be imposed aad is iinposed on fhe proved niiscondiict, fhe Tribunal has no power to substitate its own discretion for that of the aiifhority. The adeqziacy of penalty iinless it is mala fide is ^ certaialy not a inatter for the Tribunal to conceni wifh. The Tribunal also caanot interfere wifh the penally if fhe conclusion offhe Inqiiiiy Officer or fhe coinpetent aufhority is based on evidence eveii if sonie of it is fonnd to be irrelevaiit or extraiieous to fhe matter.J? 15. In case of B»C. Chatiirvedi Vs. Usiioas of ladia asxd others2 observed as zuider- "12. Judicial rcview is not aa appeal froni a decision but a review of the zaanner in which the decision is made. Power of jzidicial rcview is Bieant to ensiire that flie uidividual rcceives fair treatmLcnt and not to ensure that fhe conclusion which the aiifhority reaches is necessarily corrcct is fhe eye of the Court, When aa enquiry is conducted on charges of miscondzict by a public ser^aiit, fhe Court/Tribunal is concemed to determiae whefher the iaquiiy was held by a competent officer or wheflier rules of natiiral justice arc complied wifh. Whether fhe findiags or concliisions arc based ou some evidence, fhe authority entnisted with flie power to hold enquiiy has jurisdiction, power aad aufhority to reach a findiag of fact or conclusion. But titiat findiag xnust be based on SOXHC evidence. Neifher flie technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined fhereia, appty to disciplinaiy proceediag. When fhe aiithonly accepts fhat evidence mid conclusion receives support fherefironi, fhe discipHnaiy aufhority is entitled to hold ttiat the deluiquent ofEcer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal ia its power ofjudicial review does uot act as appeUate authonty to reappropriate the evidence and to arnve at its owu uidependent findiags on fhe evidence. The Court/Tribunal may uiterfere wherc the autihLority held fhe proceediags agaiast fhe delinqueut officer in a Dianner iaconsistent wifh fhe niles of natural justice or in violation of stattitoiy rules prescribing fhe mode of inquuy or where fhe conclusioii or findmg reached by the disciplmary authority is based on no 10 evidence, If fhe conclusion or findmg be szich as no reasonable person wozild have ever reached, tlie Court/Tribzinal may iaterfere wifh fhe conclusion or fhe fmdmg, and mozild the rclief so as to make it appropriate to fhe facts ofeach case.y 16. The Supreme Court in Govt. ofT.N. and others Vs. S. Vel Raj3 obseived fhat ^fhe finding rcconled by fhe Enquiiy OfiScer aiid confirmed by the appeUate azifhority were based upon the evidence led diiriiig the enquiry aad it was uot even coiitended fh.at fhe said &idiags were perverse. It was, fherefore, not open to the Tnbzuial to record contraiy fiiidiags aiid hold fhat fhe charge agamst £herespondent was not proved," 17, The Supreme Court ia the case of Kuldeep Siiigh Vs. Co^mmissioaer ofPolice aad others4 obseryed as under:- <C9. Normally the High Court aad this Coiirt would not mterfere wifh the findmgs of fact recoided at the domestic enquiry but if fhe findmg of "giiilf is based on no evidence, it wozild be perverse fuiding aiid wonld be aoienable to jiidicial scnitmy. 10. A broad distmction has, fherefore, to be inaiatained betiveen fhe decisions which ai^ perverse and fhose which are not If a decision is anived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroiighly unreliable aad no reasonable person woiild act upon it, fhe onler wozild be perverse. But if fhere is sonie evideuce on record which is acceptable and which would be rcUed Tipon, howsoever compendious it may be, fhe conckisions wozild not be treated as perverse and fhe fmdmgs would not be interfered with" 18, In aiiother case of Yog?siath Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra asid aaother5, the Supreme Court after considermg the earlier decisions observed as zinder: 11 1; '^7 19. <tf51.....,.The. law is well settled that if the findmgs are perverae and are not supported by evidence on record or fhe finduigs recorded at fhe doinestic trial are such to which no reasonable person wozild have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to uiterfere in fhe matter. In Kiildeep v. Commr. of Police this Coiirt, relyiag upon the earlier decisions in Naiid Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ramia Rao, Ceutral Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jahi, Bharat Iron Works v, Bhagubhai Baliibhai Patel as also Rajinder Kusiiar Kiiidi^i v. Dellii Adznn. laid down that altliough fhe court cannot sit in appeal over the findiags recoirled by fhe discipliiiaiy aufhority or the enquiry officer ia a departmental enqiiiiy, it does not Bieaii fhat iii no circumstance can the court iiiterfere. It was observed fliat fhe power ofjudicial review available to a High Conrt as also to tliis Cozirt zuider fhe Constitution takes ia its stride the domestic euquiry as well and flie cozirts caa interferc wifli fhe conckisions rcached fliereia if fhere was no evidence to support fhe fladuigs or the fiiidiags recoided were such as could not have been reached by aii orduiaiy pnident maii or fhe fuidiiigs werc perverse.^ In the case of V. Ramaaa Vs. A.P. SRTC aad others6, the Suprcme Court observed as zuider :- €cll, The conimon fhread runnuig fhrough in aU fhese decisious is fhat fhe court should not interfere wifli the admuiistrator^s decision uiiless it was iUogical or sziffers froia procedziral iizipropriety or was shocking to fhe coiiscience of the conrt, iii fhe sense fhat it was in defiaiice of logic or raoral staiidaids. In view of what has been stated iii Wednusbuiy case fhe court wozild not go into the correctaess of fhe choice niade by fhe adiniaister open to him aad the cozirt shozild not substitute its decision for fhat of fhe adxiiinistrator, The scope of judicial review is w 12 limiited to the deficiency isi decisioa-makiog psx)cess and not the decision." 20. The next contention that the disciplinary proceediags were actuated by nialice cannot be accepted as the proceedii^s were conducted by the District Judge. Purported inallce on the f^rt of the Nazir and others caanot be the ground for declaruag fhe entire proceediag as vitiated, The petitioner would not have beexi exonerated from four other charges. Furthermore, when a charge has been proved, fhe question ofexoneratmg the petitioiier on the ground of purported malice on the part of the employer does not arise (See. L.K. Verma Vs. HMT Ltd. and Anotlier7.) 21. The Suprcme Court m tfae case of Govt. af AJP. and otliers Vs» Mohd. NasriiBali Khan8 observed as iiader:- <<11. By now it is a weU-estabUshed principle of law that the High Court exei^ising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act ^ an appeUate authority. Its j'urisdiction is circuniscribed and con&aed to corrcct errors oflaw or procedxiral error, ifany, resxiltmg ia inanifest iniscarriage of justice or violation of prixiciples of natural justice. Judicial review is not akfcn to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evideoce as an appeBate authority." 22. In another latest decision, the Supreme Court in Syadieate Baak and others Vs. Venkatesh eururao Kurati9 observed as uxader:- ^ 18. In our view, non-suppfy of dociuxients on which fhe enquiry ofiScer does not rely during the course of enquixy does not create any prejudice to the deUnquent. It is oxily those docuinents, which are relied upon by fhe eifcquny officer to arrive at tds conclusion, the non-suppfy ofwhich would cause prejudice, being violative of primciples of natural justice. Even then, the non-supply of those 13 docunients prejiidice fhe case ofthe deliiiquent ojG5cer mzist be established by fhe deliaquent officer. It is weU-settled law that the doctrine ofpriiiciples ofnatural justice are not einbodied niles. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon fhe facts aad circunistaiices ofeach case. To siistabi fhe allegation ofviolation ofprmciples ofnatural justice, one nxust establish that prejzidice has been caused to hini for non-observance ofpriuciples ofnaturaljustice.^ 23. The petitioner was afforded siifScient opportunity ofheariiig, AU fhe rcleva&t niaterials aad doczisiients rclied on by the enqtiny officer were seen by fhe petitioner on inspection and fhe same constraed infonaed evidence for hoMiag fhe petitioner guUty of ffae charges. Thus, the reqiiirenient of prmciple of natural justice is fuUy satisfied ia the present case. The petitioner has not furtlier proved that aay prejudice to the petitioner was caused ui any ofher niafiner. 24 > As a result, for the reasons made hereiaabove and in view of fhe weU setfled pnnciples of law, fhis petition deserves to be aiid is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Bablu 1. (AIR1989SC 1185) 2. 3. {(1997) 2 SCC 708} 4. 5. ^1999)7SCC739) 6, 7. {(2006) 2 SCC 269} 8. 9. ^2006) 3 SCC 150} <(1995) 6 SCC 749} 9,1999} 2 SCC 10} {(2005) 7 SCC 338} {(2006) 2 SCC 373}