Holding

A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot re‑appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings; the disciplinary inquiry was valid and the dismissal was proper.

Summary

Mohd. Narsullah Khan, a Head Constable, was on bandobust duty during the visit of US President Bill Clinton when he allegedly removed and concealed a CCTV lens, an act captured on the premises' closed‑circuit TV. A disciplinary inquiry examined four witnesses, found the charge of theft proved beyond reasonable doubt, and recommended dismissal, which the disciplinary authority imposed. Khan challenged the dismissal before the appellate authority, the Administrative Tribunal, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court; the High Court quashed the dismissal, ordering reinstatement and back wages. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot re‑appreciate evidence or act as an appellate body, and that there was no violation of natural‑justice principles in the inquiry. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order, upheld the disciplinary dismissal, and denied back wages. The decision re‑affirms that serious misconduct by a member of the disciplinary force warrants dismissal to maintain public confidence.

Issues considered

The scope of judicial review under Article 226: whether a High Court can re‑appreciate evidence and act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters.
Whether the disciplinary inquiry into the alleged theft complied with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.
Whether the dismissal of a Head Constable for theft of a CCTV lens constitutes a proportionate punishment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 309

Subjects

disciplinary dismissalmisconducttheftjudicial reviewArticle 226service lawnatural justicehigh court appellate jurisdictionsecurity duty

Judgment

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.
A
v.
MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN

JANUARY 31, 2006

[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B
} ..

Service law:

Dismissal for misconduct-Member of Discipline Force committing theft
of camera lens while on duty which ran high security risk-Dismissed from c
service-Challenged-Held: Charges being serious called for 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 rightly awarded.

Constitution of India, 1950: D

Article 226-.Judicial review-Scope and ambit of-Held: High Court
while exercising writ jurisdiction not to sit as an appellate authority and re-
appreciate the evidence-Its .Jurisdiction is confined to correct procedural
error resulting in violation of principles of natural justice-Administrative E
law-Judicial review.

a
Respondent was a member of Discipline Force holding the rank of
Head Constable. On the occasion of visit of the then President of USA, he was
assigned the Bandobust duty. During the Bandobust duty, he allegedly removed
a camera lens and concealed the same, which was observed in the close circuit F
by the Electrician, PW-4. Disciplinary Inquiry was ·initiated against him.

Inquiry officer examined 4 witnesses and after conducting detailed
inquiry and affording adequate opportunity to the respondent, found him guilty.
After receipt of Inquiry report, Disciplinary authority issued SCN and after
considering the reply to SCN, dismissed respondent from service. Respondent G
unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal before Appellate Authority and
Administrative Tribunal. However, his Writ Petition before High Court was
allowed. Hence the present appeal by special leave.

911 H
912 SUPRE\1E COURf REPORTS [2006J I S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. There is no allegation of violation of principles of natural 4
justice, or that the inquiry was conducted without following the procedures
or rules and regulations. The only case put up by the respondent is that the
theft or removal of lens by the respondent is not proved in the course of
B Inquiry. Going through the Report of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, after
examining PWs. I, 2, 3 and 4 and after affording adequate opportunity to the
respondent, has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the
respondent stood proved. 1915-G-H; 916-AI

2. From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that
C the High Court re-appreciated the evidence as an Appellate Authority. Apart
from re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High
Court also fell in grave error by directing the Govt. Pleader and the counsel
for the respondent to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the Inquiry
Officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the Inquiry as part of
D additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the Inquiry
Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs. I, 2, 3 and 4 during the
Inquiry. 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
E 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-appreci~ting the evidence as
an Appellate Authority.1917-C-EI

Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 and B.C. Chaturvedi
F v. Union of India & Ors., 11995] 6 sec749, referred to.

3. Respondent's contention 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 is not acceptable. The
G gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the
offence. The respondent was holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty
assigned to him ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct
could have led to serious security lapse resulting in fatal consequences. But, 'f
because of timely detection by the electrician-PW4, the lens was recovered
H and immediately restored. The inquiry officer was right in holding that the
GOVT. OF A.P. v. MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN [SEMA, J.] 913

# charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of Disciplinary A
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. (919-C-E(

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1318 of2005.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Writ Petition No. 14146 of2003.
}

Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants.

Mrs. K. Amareswari, B. Ramana Murthy and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari.for C
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.K. SEMA, J. This appeal, preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh,
• is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High D
Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9.12.2003 in Writ Petition No. 14146 of2003
quashing the order of dismissal dated 21.9.2000 of the respondent herein and
the order of the appellate authority dated 20. l 0.2001 confirming the order of
dismissal. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that the respondent
herein be reinstated into service forthwith with all back wages and all <1ttendant
benefits, which he could have received, had he not been dismissed from E
service. The High Court further directed that the respondent be reinstated
into service within a period of four weeks from· the date of receipt of the order.
This Court on 16.7.2004, while issuing notice granted interim stay of the
impugned order. Further, on 18.7.2005, on the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent that the respondent has been reinstated pursuant F
to the High Court order but the back wages have not been paid, this Court
stayed the payment of back wages directed by the High Court.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The respondent, Mohd. Nasrullah Khan was working as Head Constable
at Shamshabad Police Station of Ranga Reddy District. Mr. Bill Clinton, the G
then President of the United States of America was to visit the Hi-Tech City
f in Hyderabad and the respondent was assigned the bandobast duty at the
office of rhe Oracle Software India Limited on the 4th Floor of Hi-Tech City,
Madhapur, Hyderabad. It is alleged that during the bandobast duty, the
respondent removed the CCTV Lens No. VAT-660-DSC-56894 of Watal H
914 SUPRE\1E COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A Company from ceiling of the said office and concealed the same. It is further •
alleged that the said removal of the lens was observed in the close circuit TV
by one G. Sridhar, the Electrician (PW4) and he immediately went to the
respondent and asked him about the removal but the respondt;nt denied the
same. The Electrician, thereafter, informed the same to the Security Supervisor
and on enquiry by him, though the respondent denied of having removed the
B lens at the first instance, later handed over the same stating that the same
was lying at the toilet.

A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent by the
Superintendent of Police, A.R. Ranga Reddy District by appointing Deputy
C Superintendent of Police (DSP) by its order dated 19.4.2000. The substance
of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour against the respondent are
as follows:

"Shri Mohd. Nasrulla Khan, High Court 380 of P.S. Shamshabad
(u/s) exhibited grave misconduct in committing theft of the C.C.T.V.
D lens costing about Rs.15,000/- from the office of Oracle India Limited,
Hi-Tech City, Madhapur on 24.3.2000, while on Bandobust duty, for
personal gain."

In course of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer examined as many as four
witnesses and after conducting detailed inquiry by affording adequate
E opportunity to the respondent submitted its report dated 18.8.200 holding that
the charge against the respondent of theft of C.C.T. V. lens has been proved
beyond all reasonable doubt. The Inquiry Officer, in its Report, also observed
as under:

"The charges are serious in nature. The delinquent being the member
F of the disciplined force and being a protector of public property,
ought not to have attempted to commit such a delinquency. I, therefore,
propose that the delinquent may be awarded with a stringent
punishment to meet the ends of justice."

After receipt of the Inquiry Report. a show cause notice was issued to
G the respondent herein by the Disciplinary Authority and after considering the
reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the
respondent from service with immediate effect by an order dated 21.9.2000. It
was further directed that the period of suspension from 30.3.2000 till the date
of dismissal be treated as "Not on duty". Aggrieved thereby, the respondent
H preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was
GOVT. OF A.P. v. MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN [SEMA. J.J 915
dismissed on 11.5.2001. Thereafter, the respondent tiled O.A.No. 3700 of2001 A
before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative
1 ribunal, by its order dated 1.8.200 I, remanded the matter to the Appellate
Authority for reconsideration of the matter. The Appellate Authority, after
reconsidering the representation, rejected the appeal again and confirmed the
order of dismissal by its order dated 20.10.200 I. Being aggrieved, the respondent
again filed O.A. No. 8066 of 200 I before the Tribunal contending, inter-a/ia, B
that the theft, as alleged, was not proved and the Appellate Authority did not
properly consider the submissions of the respondent and that the Appellate
Authority dismissed the appeal without application of mind. The appellant
herein filed a detailed counter repudiating the allegations made in the 0.A.
It is stated that the order of dismissal was passed in accordance with the rules C
and regulations and there was no denial of principles of natural justice to the
respondent, nor was there any allegations of violations of rules and regulations
or procedures. It was also contended that the guilt of the respondent has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. After considering the petition and
the counter, the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 4.4.03
... dismissed the O.A. confirming the order of dismissal. Aggrieved thereby, the
respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 14146 of 2003 before the High Court,
D
\
which was allowed by the impugned order, as stated earlier. Hence, the
present appeal by Special Leave.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding
recorded by the Inquiry Officer is a finding of fact and the High Court cannot E
act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to
correct errors of law or procedural law, if any, or violation of principles of
natural justice. It is further contended that the High Court fell in grave error
-...
of law by re-appreciating the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer like an
appellate authority in the instant case. F
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
alleged theft of lens or removal of lens by the respondent is not proved and,
therefore, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and the order of
dismissal on the basis of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is
vitiated. G
At this stage, w~ may point out that th~re is no allegation of violation
of principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry was conducted without
following the procedures or rules and regulations. The only case put up
before us by the respondent is that the theft Oi' removal of lens by the
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200611 S.C.R.

A respondent is not proved in the course of Inquiry. This contention need not
detain us any longer because going through the Report of the Inquiry, the
Inquiry Officer, after examining PWs. l, 2, 3 and 4 and after affording adequate
opportunity to the respondent, has come to the conclusion that the charge
levelled against the respondent stands proved.

B The High Court, while upsetting the order of the Tribunal dated 4.4.03
passed in O.A. No. 8066/0 I and order of dismissal dated 21.1.2000 confirmed
by the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.2001, recorded its finding in paragraph
5 of its judgment as under:

"There is no dispute that the petitioner was posted on Bando-bust
c duty on th~ relevant date and the entire premises was under close
circuit T.V. System. The question is whether the petitioner has
committed the theft of camer;i ,lens. There is no direct evidence on this
aspect. It is only on presumption that when once the camera was not
relaying the pictures, the officials of Oracle company came to that
place where the camera was positioned and found that the lens was
D not available with the camera. Even the witnesses examined on this
aspect namely the employees of Oracle Company did not state that
•
the petitioner had committed theft of the lens and further it is on
record that the electrician himself traced out the camera lens which
was lying outside toilet room and the entire premises was carpeted.
E No other independent officer has been examined to establish that the
petitioner had committed theft. However, we see from the report of the
Enquiry Officer that he -got the cassette displayed and noticed the
movements of the petitioner, sitting on chair, getting up and coming
towards the camera and touching the lens of camera (hand is clearly ..
{
visible) between 13-58 and 13-59 hours on 24.3.2000. But this is not
F the function of the Enquiry Officer. It must be established by the
independent evidence. When we directed the learned Government
pleader and the learned Counsel for the petitioner to again view the
cassette, they stated that the visibility is beyond recognition. In such
circumstances, it has to be held that the findings of the Enquiry
G Officer appears to be based on mere sunnises and conjectures and it
is finding based on no evidence. In such situation, the Tribunal ought
to have held that the Enquiry is vitiated for lack of acceptable and
permissible evidence on this aspect. It is also on record that the lens ...
was not recovered from the person of the petitioner and admittedly
the petitioner was on guard duty in the premises where the cameras
H
J
f
GOVT. OF A.I'. v. MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN [SEMA, J.] 917

., were positioned. In such a situation, it cannot be said that simply A
because, the lens of one camera is missing, the petitioner committed
j
theft of it. If really the police had conducted investigation, they cou.ld
have sent the lens to the Forensic expert with reference to the
fingerprints and that could have made the matters clear. But for the
reasons best known to the police, they did not take such action and
tried to find fault with the police constable fastening the charge of B
theft. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that
t
the Tribunal failed to take into consideration this aspect and held that
the Enquiry was conducted properly and finding was validly recorded."
_,
From the finding recorded by the High Court it clearly appears that the
~
High Court re-appreciated the evidence as an Appellate Authority. Apart from
c
re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible in law, the High Court
also fell in grave error by directing the Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel
for the respondent herein to again view the cassettes. It is on record that the
Inquiry Officer relied on the video cassettes displayed during the Inquiry as
part of additional evidence. The finding has been clearly recorded by the D
•f Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced by PWs. I, 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
1 not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined E
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 evidenc~ as
an Appellate Authority.
)
We may now notice a few decisions of this Court on this aspect
F
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
G
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 H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] I S.C.R.

A 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
B 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."
c Again, the same principle has been reiterated by this Court in B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., [ 1995 J 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
D 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
E officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. W~ether
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
F 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
G own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in d manner inconsistent with the rules of na!ural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
H authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
}
GOVT. OF A.P. v. MOHD. NARSULLAH KHAN [SEMA, J.] 919

such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/ A
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."

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. B
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 C
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 D
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. 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 E
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 F
period he has worked, the salary and allowances already paid to him shall not
be disturbed. The respondent, however, shall not get his back wags.

In the premises aforestated, we are clearly of the view that the High
Court has committed patent error of law which has resulted in miscarriage of.
justice. The order of the High Court is, accordingly, quashed. The appeal is G
allowed. Consequently, the writ petition, filed by the respondent stands
dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.
+ D.G. Appeal allowed.