Case: Government Of A.P.  Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan

additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs. 1,2,3 and 4 during the Inquiry. By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. We may now notice a few decisions of this Court on this aspect avoiding multiplicity. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989) 2 SCC 177 , K. Jagannatha Shetty, J., speaking for the Bench, observed at page SCC 189 as under: "We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter." 9. Again, the same principle has been reiterated by this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749. K. Ramaswamy, J., speaking for the Court, observed at page SCC 759 as under: "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." 10. As already said, in the present case there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or the inquiry being held inconsistent with the mode of procedure prescribed by the rules or regulations. This takes us to the last submission of the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence, said to have been committed, being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment may be awarded in place of dismissal from service. We are unable to countenance this submission. The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the offence. The respondent was a member of the Discipline Force holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty assigned to him was a bandobast duty during the visit of the then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting into fatal consequences. But, because of timely detection of the electrician - PW4, the lens was recovered and immediately restored. 11. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of Disciplinary Force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the Establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded. It is stated that the respondent was reinstated on 19.6.04, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and has been working since then and pay and allowances have been paid from 19.6.04. Since, he has been paid for the period he has worked, the salary and allowances already paid to him shall not be disturbed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]in the present case there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or the inquiry being held inconsistent with the mode of procedure prescribed by the rules or regulations. This takes us to the last submission of the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence, said to have been committed, being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment may be awarded in place of dismissal from service. We are unable to countenance this submission. The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the offence. The respondent was a member of the Discipline Force holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty assigned to him was a bandobast duty during the visit of the then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting into fatal consequences. But, because of timely detection of the electrician - PW4, the lens was recovered and immediately restored11. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of Disciplinary Force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the Establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded. It is stated that the respondent was reinstated on 19.6.04, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and has been working since then and pay and allowances have been paid from 19.6.04. Since, he has been paid for the period he has worked, the salary and allowances already paid to him shall not be disturbed