HIGH COURT OF GUJARATversusHITENDRAVRAJLALASHARA&ANR.

                       [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1006


A                   HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
                                  v.
               HITENDRAVRAJLALASHARA&ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 10304 of 2014)
8                        NOVEMBER 24, 2014
          [V. GOPALA GOWDAAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
          Constitution of India, 1950: Arts. 226 and 227 -
    Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of interference - Certain
    a/legations made against the respondent-judicial officer -
C   Enquiry held and responde(lt dismissed from service -
    Respondent's application before the High Court allowed and
    inquiry report and order of dismissal set aside - Held: High
    Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence acting as court
    of appeal - The enquiry officer rightly rendered the finding
D   against the respondent - Order of dismissal was justified -
    Service law- Dismissal from service.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
          Held: 1. It is a well accepted principle of law that
    the High Court while exercising powers under Articles
E   226 and 227 of the Constitution does not act as an
    appellate court and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and
    confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if
    any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or
    violation of the principles of natural justice. In the instant
F   case, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence acting
    as a court of appeal. The order of the High Court is not
    sustainable. On facts, it was found that no procedural
    irregularity was committed by the Enquiry Officer in the
    disciplinary proceedings as the same was conducted in
G   accordance with Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
    1971, and principles of natural justice. The enquiring
    authority had elaborately considered the charges leveled
    against the delinquent officer and rightly held to be
    proved. The Enquiry Officer rightly rendered the finding
H
                                1006
   HIGH COURT OF GUJARATv. HITENDRAVRAJLAL                        1007
                   AS HARA

against the delinquent and same was accepted by the A
High Court and on its recommendation the order of
dismissal was passed by the appointing authority and it
was legally justified. [Para 6](1010-B-E]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
10304 of 2014.                                                     B
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30-08-2013 of_the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (on Judicial Side) in
Special Civil Application No. 15449 of 2008.
       D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Mrs. Sumita Ray,Advs.        C
for the Appellant.
     Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki,
Advs. for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against D
the judgment and final Order dated 30.8.2013. passed by the
High Court Gujarat atAhmedabad in Special Civil Application
No.15449 of 2008. The respondent was working as a Judicial
Officer under the administrative control of the High Court
namely the appellant herein. Labour Court of Bhavnagar had         E
passed ex-parte award dated 17.7.1993 in Reference (LCB)
No.490of1990 in favour of workman, wherein his termination
was set aside with a direction to grant consequential benefits.
The employer filed Misc. Application No. 92 of 1993 on
21.11.1993 to set aside the ex-parte award in the said case        F
and the Labour Court dismissed the application on 28.4.1997.
      2.Employer filed another Misc. Application No.37of1997
praying to set aside the ex-parte award in the said case.
Meanwhile workman filed Recovery Application No.279 of
1997 and the Labour Court directed recovery in pursuance to        G
order passed in Reference LCB No.490 of 1990. Challenging
the original award and the order passed in recovery application
the employer preferred Special Civil Application Nos. 446 and
520 of 1998 and the High Court dismissed the same.
                                                                   H
1008       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A Respondent as In-charge Judge of the Labour Court of
   Bhavnagar allowed the employer's Misc. Application No.37
   of 1997 on 8.5.1998. The workman filed complaint dated
   13.5.1998 before the President, Industrial Tribunal. The
   workman challenged the said order by filing Civil Application
 8 No. 4460of1998 on 15.9.1999 and the High Court dismissed
   the same. Two Members of the Industrial Court on 28.12.1999
   conducted preliminary inquiry on the complaint of the workman
   against the respondent and concluded against him.Aggrieved
   by the Order in Special Civil Application No.4460 of 1998 both
 C the workman and employer preferred independent Letters
   PatentAppeal Nos.1362of 1999and 1412of 1999. They came
   to be disposed of by common order dated 27 .3.2000 in terms
   of settlement arrived at between the parties. The Inquiry Officer
   on 4.4.2002 passed the final order. The High Court on 3.8.2002
 o recorded tentative decision accepting the Inquiry Report. The
   respondent was dismissed from service on 19.11.2007.
   Challenging the same the respondent-officer preferred the
   Special Civil Application No.15449 of 2008 before the High
   Court, it has allowed the application and set aside the Inquiry
 E Report and order of dismissal passed against the Appellant.
   Aggrieved by the same on the administrative side, the High
   Court has preferred the present appeal.
        3. The employer filed first Misc. Application No.92 of
  1993 to set aside the ex-parte award in Reference No. LCB
F 490 of 1990 and that was dismissed on 28.4.1997. The
  employer filed another Misc.Application No.37of1997 praying
  to set aside the same ex-pa rte award and that was allowed by
  the delinquent officer on 8.5.1998. On the complaint of
  workman inquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found
G that the order passed by the delinquent officer amounts to
  review of the order passed by his predecessor in dismissing
  the miscellaneous application of the employer. Moreover, the
  employer in his second application did not refer to the filing
  and dismissal of his earlier application seeking for the same
H
   HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT v. HITENDRA VRAJLAL                     1009
           ASHARA[C. NAGAPPAN, J.]

relief and further did not allege that his second application was A
beyond time and there was no discussion and finding in the
order passed by the delinquent officer as to the ground on
which the delay was condoned. In the conclusion, the Enquiry
Officer held that the delinquent officer had allowed Misc.
Application No.37 of 1997 in the execution proceedings going B
out of the way to help the employer and to favour him brushing
aside the legal contentions and objections raised by the
workman to the said Miscellaneous application.
      4. The Division Bench observed that though the employer
had not disclosed about his earlier application, the workman C
in his reply filed to the second application had disclosed the
same and also produced copies of the. earlier proceedings
as evidence and the omission to mention about the earlier
application would not amount to suppression, since facts were
 known to both the parties. The Division Bench further held that D
the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent officer had
 reviewed the earlier order is erroneous since the order passed
 by the delinquent officer was not in exercise of review
 jurisdiction and he never treated it so and rejected the
 conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent officer did E
 not properly appreciate the objection raised by the workman:
        5. Insofar as the finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard
 to entertaining of time-barred second miscellaneous
 application of the employer in the execution proceedings and
 condonation of delay, the Division Bench held that the power F
 to extend the period for setting aside ex-parte award is
 conferred on the labour court under Rule 26-A(ii) and though
 the delinquent officer has not stated so in his order, the appeal
 preferred against the said order was summarily dismissed by
 the High Court and in the further appearthe parties have arrived G
 at settlement and it renders the issue of limitation and
 condonation of delay more or less academic. The Division
  Bench was of the opinion that prima facie the delinquent officer
  did try to be judicious and it is sufficient to absolve him from
                                                                     H
1010        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A charge of undue favour/help to the employer and on that
      premise set aside the report of the Enquiry Officer and order
      of dismissal.
            6. It is a well accepted principle of law that the High Court
      while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the
B Constitution does not act as an appellate court and its
     jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error
      of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest
     miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural
     justice. As already seen in the present case, the Division Bench
C has reappreciated the evidence acting as a court of appeal
     and we find it difficult to support the judgment of the Division
     Bench. We have, on facts, found that no procedural irregularity
     has been committed by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary
     proceedings as the same was conducted in accordance with
D Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and principles
    of natural justice. We noticed that the enquiring authority had
  · elaborately considered the charges leveled against the
    delinquent officer and rightly held to be proved. In our view, the
    Enquiry Officer has rightly rendered the finding against the
E 9elinquent and same was accepted by the High Court and on
    its recommendation the order of dismissal was passed by the
    appointing authority and it is legally justified.
           ?.Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
   judgment is set aside with no orders as to costs.
F

    Devika Gujral                                        Appeal allowed.