Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusMAN MOHAN NATH SINHA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1049
- Decided
- 17 August 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
A High Court under Article 226 is not a court of appeal and cannot re‑appreciate evidence or substitute its own factual findings in a departmental enquiry; its review is limited to the legality of the enquiry process.
Summary
Man Mohan Nath Sinha, a private secretary to a Uttar Pradesh state minister, was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of misappropriating public funds. He challenged the dismissal before the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the order by re‑appreciating the evidence presented to the inquiry officer and concluding that the charges were not proved. The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had acted as a court of appeal, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court held that a writ court may only review the legality of the inquiry process, not re‑evaluate the factual findings of the tribunal. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, remitted the writ petition for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, can re‑appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of a departmental inquiry officer.
- Whether the dismissal order of a public servant can be quashed on the ground that the evidence before the inquiry officer was insufficient, in a writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 408, s. 409, s. 420
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(b), s. 3(2)
Subjects
judicial reviewArticle 226departmental inquiryservice lawevidence appraisalhigh court jurisdictionwrit petitionmisappropriation of public funds
Judgment
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 348
A STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
v.
MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal NO. 5549 of 2009)
AUGUST 17, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:
~
c Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope of - Held: It is not
open to High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise, as a court
of appeal, the evidence Jed before inquiry officer and examine
findings recorded by him - In the instant case, High Court
erred in scanning the evidence as if it was a court Of appeal
- Order of High Court is set aside and matter remitted to it
D 1"'
for consideration afresh in accordance with law and
expeditiously - Judicial review - Service Law - Disciplinary ~.
proceedings - Sachiva/aya Niyam Sangrah, Uttar Pradesh
Shashan - Para 266.
E In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the
petitioner, who was the 'private secretary to a State
Minister, consequent upon the report of the inquiry officer
finding him guilty of misappropriation of public money
fraudulently withdrawn by him from the account of the .,_,.
' ,A
F State Minister, the High Court reappreciating the evidence
produced before the inquiry officer entered into merits of
the findings recorded by him, and quashed the order of
dismissal. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the
appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The power of judicial review is not directed
,_,,.
against the decision but is confined to the decision
H 348
'
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 349
& ANR.
~
making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on A
merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to
re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the
Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by him
as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In
the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in B
scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The
approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter
suffers from manifest error,. and the matter requires fresh
consideration by the High Court in accordance with law.
Resultantly, the order passed by the High Court is set c
aside; the matter is remitted to it for disposal of the writ
petition afresh in accordance with law and expeditiously.
[Para 12] [357-H; 358-A-C]
;. A
J. State of Orissa vs. Muralidhar Jena, AIR 1963 SC 404;
State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723; State D
of Madras vs. G. Sundatram, AIR 1965 SC 1103 and State
of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs. Chitra Ventaka Rao (1975)
2 sec 557, relied on.
Case Law Reference: E
AIR 1963 SC 404 relied on Para 8
... ~
If' AIR 1963 SC 1723 relied on Para 9
AIR 1965 SC 1103 relied on Para 10
F
(1975) 2 sec 557 relied on Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5549 of 2009.
~ From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2008 of the High G
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Writ Petition No.1564 (SB) of 2003.
S.R. Singh, Garvesh Kabra, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A for the Appellants.
Respondent No.1 In-Person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Th~ question that this Court is called upon to determine
.
~
in this appeal by special leave is: whether the High Court was
'
justifi~d in quashing the order dated November 24, 2003,
whereby the respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service?.
c
3. Man Mohan Nath Sinha , respondent No.1, was posted
as Private Secretary (Class II) to the then State Minister, Minor
Irrigation, Shri Ram Asrey Paswan, where he worked from ~ ,4
November 18, 1997 to April 24, 1999. He is said to have,
D misappropriated the government money while he was attached ~
· as Private Secretary to the then State Minister. The Vigilance
Department after holding an enquiry against respondent No.1
sought his prosecution under Sections 408, 409, 420, IPC, as
well. as under Sections 13 ( 1) (b) read with ~ 3 (2) of the
E Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On October 9, 2001, the
respondent No.1 ·was placed under suspension. The
disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him and
1-'
he was served with the chargesheet on October 19, 2001. The 'Ill
principal charge against the respondent No.1 was that while
F being attached as a Private Secretary to the State Minister,
Minor Irrigation, he took undue advantage of the ignorance and
disability of the Minister and acted in violation of his duties as
a Private Secretary by drawing a total of Rs. 37,00,304/- from
the State Minister's Saving Bank Account No. 8002, State Bank
G of India, Secretariat Branch, Lucknow, and out of the amount
so withdrawn, an amount,of Rs.2t,32,0f1/- was deposited by 41
the delinquent in his own Saving Bank Account No. 8861J!l the
same bank. It was alleged in the charge that the State~inister
received an amo~nt of Rs.12,00,000/- on 'different dates;
payment for petrol etc. to the tune of Rs.3,68,293/- was also
H
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 351
& ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
~ made by the delinquent and the remaining amount was A
misappropriated. The second charge against the respondent
No.1 was that being a senior public servant, he obtained undue
advantage and by adopting criminal means and acting in
contravention of the duties of the Private Secretary, he
breached the Code of Conduct prescribed for Private B
Secretaries in Para 266 of the Sachivalaya Niyam Sangrah,
Uttar Pradesh Shashan.
4. The delinquent denied the charges and put forth his
version in his reply. The Inquiry Officer after recording the
evidence, submitted his report on December 12, 2002. The
c
Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that in his capacity as Private
Secretary to the then State Minister, the delinquent took undue
I>
advantage, acted contrary to the duties and responsibilities of
• Private Secretary and he perpetrated fraud and deceit upon the
State Minister for unlawful gains to himself. The Inquiry Officer D
"" found that the delinquent had misappropriated a portion of the
amount so withdrawn from the Saving Bank account of the State
Minister.
5. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the E
delinquent and after giving him a show cause notice, the
Competent Authority passed an order on November 24, 2003,
•..,, dismissing the respondent No.1 from service .
6. The respondent No.1 challenged the order of dismissal
before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow F
Bench, Lucknow.
7. The Division Bench by its order dated May 23, 2008,
set aside the order of dismissal dated November 24, 2003. The
impugned order passed by the Division Bench depicts that it G
~- proceeded to· consider the controversy by framing two
questions namely; (one) whether in view of the evidence on
record, two charges leveled against the delinquent stood
proved and (two) whether in view of the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer which have been accepted by the Disciplinary H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Authority/Appointing Authority, any punishment could have been ~
awarded to the delinquent, much less any major punishment of
dismissal from service. The formulation of first question and the
discussion that has followed in the impugned judgment suggests
that the Division Bench attempted to appreciate the evidence
B which was produced before the Inquiry Officer. This is how the
High Court proceeded to appreciate the evidence:
"The Minister himself admits that out of the aforesaid •j
amount Rs.37,00,304/- he had received Rs.12 lacs. He did
not and could not give any proof or evidence to the
c contrary even the enquiry officer did not accept the
admission of the Minister for establishing that he had
received Rs.12 lacs, though it being admitted to the
Minister that he has received Rs.12 lacs. The said amount
.\ ...
thus, could not have been said to be either embezzled or
D misappropriated by the petitioner." ~
The Division Bench went on to scan the evidence produced
before the Inquiry Officer in the following manner:
"The petitioner has though given an explanation for
E
the aforesaid transactions, but even without accepting that
the Minister has authorized him orally to make the payment
from the account and, even assuming that on the denial of ",.I
the Minister of such oral instructions, the petitioner could "I·
not have made the deposit in his own account and could
F not have made the payment in cash to petrol firms, but the
fact remains that the said amount was actually paid to the
petrol dealers and, therefore, it cannot be a case of
embezzlement, so far the government money is concerned.
G The minister himself admitted and it is also proved
from the record that the signatures on the cheques were -¥
that of the Minister and the money was withdrawn from the
bank on his instructions by the petitioner. It is a different
matter that the Minister qualified his statement by saying
H that the signatures were obtained on the blank cheques
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 353
& ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
-' without indicating the actual amount which was likely to be. A
withdrawn on the ground that the actual amount would be
confirmed from the register towards the price of petrol and
then would be filled in, but the fact remains that the
signatures on the cheques were that of the Minister, which
signatures he put knowing that he was issuing the cheques B
for paying the price of petrol. It therefore, cannot be said
that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount by obtaining
~
the signatures of the Minister on the cheques fraudulently."
8. In State of Orissa vs. Muralidhar Jena1, a Constitution
Bench of this Court held :
c
"14. There are two other considerations to which reference
must be made. In its judgment the High Court has observed-
> that the oral evidence admittedly did not support the case
j. against the respondent. The use of the word "admittedly", D
in our opinion, amounts somewhat to an over statement;
and the discussion that follows this over statement in the
judgment indicates an attempt to appreciate the evidence
which it would ordinarily not be open to the High Court to
do in writ proceedings. The same comment falls to be E
made in regard to the discussion in the judgment of the
High Court where it considered the question about the
~
interpretation of the word "Chatrapur Saheb." The High
y"
Court has observed that "in the absence of a clear
~vidence on the point the i.1ference drawn by the Tribunal
F
that Chatrapur Saheb meant the respondent would not be
justified". This observation clearly indicates that the High
Court was attempting to appreciate evidence. The
judgment of the Tribunal shows that it considered several
facts and circumstances in dealing with the question about
G
.)L-
the identity of the individual indicated by the expression
.,,,.. "Chatrapur Saheb ".Whether or not the evidence on which
the Tribunal relied was satisfactory and sufficient for
justifying its conclusion would not f~ll to be considered in
a writ petition. That in effect is the approach initially
H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R..
A. adopted by the High Court at the beginning of its }-
judgment. However,. in the subsequent part of the judgment,
the High Court appears to have been persuaded to
appreciate the evidence for itself, and that, in our opinion,
is not reasonable or legitimate."
B
9. In the case of State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao2 , a three
Judge Bench of this Court held:
..,,,.
.
"7, ....... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over
c the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure
A.
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural J
D justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, A '
which .the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty
of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a
E petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the
departmental authorities have held the proceedings . _..
'Y
against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the
F rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities
have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision
by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and
the merits ofthe case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the
G
conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person cout~ ever have
arrived at that conclusion, or on similar groundS: But the
-
departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise
\
-~
-
properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some
H A
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 355
& ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
-4_ legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the A
adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter
which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution."
B
10. The aforesaid decisions were noticed by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madras
-r vs. G. Sundatram3 , and it has been held that it is not open to
the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence before the Tribunal
and record the conclusion that the evidence does not establish
·C
charges against the delinquent. In the words of the Constitution
Bench:
"9. It is therefore clear that the High Court was not
). l
competent to consider the question whether the evidence
). before the Tribunal and the Government was insufficient or D
unreliable to establish the charge against the respondent.
It could have considered only the· fact whether there was
any evidence at all which, if believed by the Tribunal, would
establish the charge against the respondent. Adequacy of
that evidence to sustain the charge is not a question before E
the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. This view was reiterated in Union
... , of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364
"" 10. It is therefore clear that the High Court was in error in
reappreciating the evidence before the Tribunal and F
recording the conclusion that that evidence did not
establish the charges against the respondent. ............. "
11. The scope of judicial review in dealing with
departmental enquiries came up for consideration before this . G
~- Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs.
.... Chitra Ventaka Rao4 and this Court held:
"21 .......... The High Court is not a court of appeal under
Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a
... H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court >-
is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by
an authority competent in that behalf and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is
B some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty
to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may
reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
~
officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the
High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an
c independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may
interfere where the departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of the statutory rules prescribing the mode. of enquiry or J ,..
where the authorities have disabled themselves from
D ~'
reaching a fair decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or
by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations or where the conclusion on the very face
of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
E person could ever have arrived at that conclu~ion. The
departmental authorities are, it" the enquiry is otherwise
properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some ...
legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the ' ~·
adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter
F which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226
22 ...................................................
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article
G 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not _,,,_
as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an
inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of
evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ
-
prqceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face
H ;
JI.•
STATE OF IJ.P. & ANR. v. MAN MOHAN NATH SINHA 357
& ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error A
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a
finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued
if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal
had erroneously refused 1to admit admissible and material
evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible 8
evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again
if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be
regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a
1'' writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and c
material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is
insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
.)
~
inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed
Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna, AIR 1964 SC 477.
D
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire
evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court
was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the
High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground E
that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence
in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal
cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the
Jo • conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the
y
finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the F
journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It
is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable
person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High
Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence
and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is G
precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to
issue a writ of certiorari should not do."
¥-
·~ 12. The legal position is well settled that the power of
judicial review is not directed against the decision but is
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A confined to the decision making process. The Court does not
sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the } ..
High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led
before the Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by ;.
the .Inquiry Officer as a court of appeal and reach its own
B conclusions. lri the:-instant case, the High Court fell into grave
error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal.
The approach ofthe High Court in consideration of the matter
suffers from manifest error and, in:our thoughtful consideration,
the matter requires fresh consideration by the· High Court in ~
c accordance with law. On this short grou~nd, we send the matter
back to the High Court .
. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and .the order dated
May 23, 2008, passed by the High Court is set aside. Writ
Petition is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh hearing
D and disposal. Needless to say that the respective arguments • ·t
of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the High Court A
which obviously will be considered on their own merit. We
request the High Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiouslt_
as may1>e possible and preferably within four months. No order
E as to costs.
./
RP. Appeal allowed.
' ,4
"'I-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "judicial review"Sign in to search