# Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 919
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2573 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kumari-sharma-v-chola-mandlam-m-s-48680
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 494 - marrying again during
lifetime of husband or wife - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2)
- Proceedings in a criminal case and
departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of
facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common - double jeopardy
-
standard
of
proof
in
both
the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination
is
not
based
on
mere
conviction of an employee in a criminal
case, the acquittal of the employee in
criminal case cannot be the basis of taking
away
the
effect
of
departmental
proceedings - courts will not interfere
with
findings
of
fact
recorded
in
departmental enquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or
where they are clearly perverse.(Para -
8,13,17,22)

Inquiry report under challenge - Quashing of -
allegation - petitioner married for the second
time - criminal proceedings pending against
petitioner - same set of facts and evidence -
department proceeded to initiate departmental
proceedings against petitioner.

HELD:-No infirmity or illegality in the impugned
inquiry report. Writ petition liable to dismissed
being misconceived.(Para -23 )

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
919

31. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt.
Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2)
GLH 291 and this High Court in total amount
of interest, accrued on the principal amount of
compensation is to be apportioned on financial
year to financial year basis and if the interest
payable to claimant for any financial year
exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as
provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the
claimants to withdraw the amount without
producing the certificate from the concerned
Income- Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has
been reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and
others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First
Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej
Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S.
General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on
19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.

32. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, vide
order dated 27.01.2022, as the purpose of
keeping compensation is to safeguard the
interest of the claimants. Since long time has
elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving
Bank Account of claimant(s) in a nationalized
Bank without F.D.R.

33. Recently, this Bench has come across
the high handed action taken by the tribunal
immediately post declaration of the award by
issuing recovery warrant against the Insurance
Company even before expiry of period of
appeal. As under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011,
the period of limitation should be permitted to
expire
and,
thereafter,
the
said
claim
application/petition itself would be considered
to be an execution petition/application for
execution of the award, but for a period of 90
days or as described in future till the period of
appeal is not over, no coercive action shall be
taken ex party in pursuance of the execution
proceedings, if initiated. The claimants would
not be required to file execution petition, an
application in the disposed of matter itself
would suffice.

34. It goes without saying that the tribunal
shall wait for 90 days, namely, the period of
limitation for preferring appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The order
of this Court in F.A.F.O. No.998 of 2022,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipesh Rai
and others decided on 21.4.2022, wherein also
this Bench has requested the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice
to
circulate
amongst
the
trial
judicial/MACT tribunal in the State. These new
directions will apply in all the matters where the
awards are passed and/or to be passed and no
coercive action shall be taken for 90 days except
issuance of summon/notice and an advance copy
to the counsel for the Insurance company or the
tortfessor who is judgment debtor be served.
----------
(2022)06ILR A919
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 2573 of 2022

Jitendra Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai

(A) Service Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 494 - marrying again during
lifetime of husband or wife - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2)
- Proceedings in a criminal case and
departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of
facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common - double jeopardy
-
standard
of
proof
in
both
the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination
is
not
based
on
mere
conviction of an employee in a criminal
case, the acquittal of the employee in
criminal case cannot be the basis of taking
away
the
effect
of
departmental
proceedings - courts will not interfere
with
findings
of
fact
recorded
in
departmental enquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or
where they are clearly perverse.(Para -
8,13,17,22)

Inquiry report under challenge - Quashing of -
allegation - petitioner married for the second
time - criminal proceedings pending against
petitioner - same set of facts and evidence -
department proceeded to initiate departmental
proceedings against petitioner.

HELD:-No infirmity or illegality in the impugned
inquiry report. Writ petition liable to dismissed
being misconceived.(Para -23 )

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Nelson Motis Vs U.O.I. & anr., AIR 1992 SC
1981

2. St. of Karn. & anr. Vs T. Venkataramanappa,
(1996) 6 SCC 455

3. Ajit Kumar Nag Vs G.M. (PJ) I.O.C. Ltd.,
(2005) 7 SCC 764
4. St. of Raj. Vs B.K. Meena & ors., AIR 1997 SC
13

5. M. Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,
AIR 1999 SC 1416

6. St. B.O.I. & ors. Vs R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004
SC 4144

7. Depot Manager, A.P. St. R.T.C. Vs Mohd
Yousuf Miya & ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232

8. Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs Akhil Bhartiya Chah
Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 200

9. K.V.S. & ors. Vs T. Srinivas, AIR 2004 SC
4127

10. St. of A. P. & ors. Vs S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723

11. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1995) 6
SCC 749

12. St. of Karn. & anr. Vs N. Gangaraj , 2020 3
SCC 423

13. St. Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs Nemi Chand
Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to correct the name of
respondent no.4 as Smt. Pooja Devi in
place of Smt. Pushpa Devi in the array of
parties during the course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsels for
the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner challenging the inquiry report
dated 28.09.2021 submitted by respondent
no.3 where by certain allegations has been
made against the petitioner.
6 All. Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
921

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was posted as
Constable in RPF post/Belgachia, Metro
Railway, Kolkata and discharging his duties
upto the satisfaction of his superior. The
respondent no.4, Smt. Pooja Devi (wife of
the petitioner), filed N.C.R. against the
petitioner on 10.09.2020, which was
registered as N.C.R. No. 82 of 2020, under
Section 494 IPC. Thereafter, again Smt.
Pooja Devi filed an application U/s 155(2)
Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate,
Saidpur District-Ghazipur, under Section
494 IPC. On the aforesaid application, the
concerned Judicial Magistrate passed order
dated 20.10.2020 directing the concerned
Station House Officer to investigate the
matter. The criminal proceedings with
respect to the aforesaid aspect was lodged
with the allegations that the petitioner had
married for the second time with one Km.
Archana Yadav, which was totally biased
and false allegation.

5. Though the criminal proceedings is
still pending against the petitioner, relying
on the same set of facts and evidence, the
department has proceeded to initiate the
departmental
proceedings
against
the
petitioner. Subsequently, show cause notice
has been issued to the petitioner on
05.03.2021 and charge sheet has also been
issued against him on 30.04.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the respondent no.3 has
submitted the impugned inquiry report
dated 28.09.2021 without considering the
material facts that the criminal proceedings
is still pending against the petitioner before
the court below for the same cause of
action. He further submits that since the
allegations are identical and the basis to
proceed
both
departmentally
and
in
criminal trial are same, therefore, prejudice
would be caused to the petitioner in case
disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial
is allowed to go on simultaneously,
therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are
liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that
the acquittal by the criminal court does not
vitiate the order of the disciplinary
authority while passing the punishment
order against the petitioner. Also the
findings recorded by the criminal court are
not binding, for the purpose of disciplinary
proceedings against a delinquent. He
further submits that the scope of judicial
review is limited to the extent that
proceedings have been conducted in
accordance with law as it lies against the
decision making procedure and not against
the decision itself. No illegality in the
inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer after holding the enquiry. The Court
cannot examine the inquiry report or the
order of the disciplinary authority as an
appellate authority, rather it has to satisfy
itself that the enquiry has been conducted
in accordance with law. Thus, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and scanned the records, the
Court finds that the position of law is well
settled regarding that the departmental
proceedings and the criminal proceedings
can go on simultaneously, except where a
departmental proceeding and a criminal
proceeding are based on the same set of
facts and evidence and where the witnesses
are common in the said cases, the Court has
to decide taking into account the said
features of the case as to whether
simultaneously continuance of both the
proceedings would be appropriate and
proper or not.
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In the judgment of the apex court in
the case of Nelson Motis Vs. Union of
India & Anr., reported in AIR 1992 SC
1981, it has been held as under:-

"The nature and scope of a
criminal case are very different from those
of a departmental disciplinary proceeding
and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot
conclude the departmental proceeding."

10. In another case of State of
Karnataka
&
Anr.
Vs
T.
Venkataramanappa, (1996) 6 SCC 455, the
Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal
case cannot be held to be a bar to hold
departmental
enquiry
for
the
same
misconduct for the reason that in a criminal
trial, standard of proof is different as the
case is to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt but in the departmental proceeding,
such a strict proof of misconduct is not
required. In the said case, the departmental
proceedings had been quashed by the
Tribunal as the delinquent had been
acquitted by the criminal court of the same
charges.

11. While dealing with a similar issue,
a three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag Vs.
General
Manager
(PJ)
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, held
as under:-

"In our judgment, the law is fairly
well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court
would not debar an employer from
exercising power in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations in force. The two
proceedings, criminal and departmental,
are entirely different. They operate in
different
fields
and
have
different
objectives. Whereas the object of criminal
trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on
the offender, the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent
departmentally and to impose penalty in
accordance with the service rules. In a
criminal trial, incriminating statement
made
by
the
accused
in
certain
circumstances or before certain officers is
totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict
rules of evidence and procedure would not
apply to departmental proceedings. The
degree of proof which is necessary to order
a conviction is different from the degree of
proof necessary to record the commission
of delinquency. The rule relating to
appreciation of evidence in the two
proceedings is also not similar. In criminal
law, burden of proof is on the prosecution
and unless the prosecution is able to prove
the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable
doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court
of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the
other hand, penalty can be imposed on the
delinquent officer on a finding recorded on
the basis of "preponderance of probability."

12. The issue as to whether
disciplinary proceedings can be held at the
time when the delinquent employee is
facing the criminal trial, has also been
considered from time to time. In State of
Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors., AIR
1997 SC 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the issue observed as
under:-

"It would be evident from the
above decisions that each of them starts
with the indisputable proposition that there
is no legal bar for both proceedings to go
on simultaneously and then say that in
certain situations, it may not be 'desirable',
'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with
the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal
case
is
pending
on
identical
charges...........The only ground suggested
6 All. Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
923
in the above decisions as constituting a
valid ground for staying the disciplinary
proceedings is that 'the defence of the
employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced'. This ground has, however, been
hedged in by providing further that this
may be done in cases of grave nature
involving questions of fact and law. In our
respectful opinion, it means that not only
the charges must be grave but that the case
must involve complicated questions of law
and
fact.
Moreover,
'advisability',
'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may
be, has to be determined in each case
taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case............One of the
contending considerations is that the
disciplinary enquiry cannot be - and should
not be - delayed unduly. So far as criminal
cases are concerned, it is well known that
they drag on endlessly where high officials
or persons holding high public offices are
involved. They get bogged down on one or
the other ground. They hardly ever reach a
prompt conclusion..........If a criminal case
is unduly delayed that may itself be a good
ground
for
going
ahead
with
the
disciplinary
enquiry
even
where
the
disciplinary proceedings are held over at
an
earlier
stage.
The
interests
of
administration
and
good
government
demand
that
these
proceedings
are
concluded
expeditiously.
It
must
be
remembered that interests of administration
demand that undesirable elements are
thrown
out
and
any
charge
of
misdemeanour is enquired into promptly.
The disciplinary proceedings are meant not
really to punish the guilty but to keep the
administrative machinery unsullied by
getting rid of bad elements. The interest of
delinquent officer also lies in a prompt
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour
should be vindicated at the earliest possible
moment and if he is guilty, he should be
dealt with promptly according to law. It is
not also in the interest of administration
that
persons
accused
of
serious
misdemeanour should be continued in
office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings.
It is not in the interest of administration. It
only serves the interest of the guilty and
dishonest........"

13. In another judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., AIR 1999 SC
1416, it has been held that there can be no
bar for continuing both the proceedings
simultaneously. The Court placed reliance
upon large number of its earlier judgments,
including Delhi Cloth and General Mills
Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806;
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen,
AIR 1965 SC 155; Jang Bahadur Singh Vs.
Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30;
Kusheshwar
Dubey Vs.
M/s.
Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 SC
2118; Nelson Motis (Supra); and B.K.
Meena (Supra), and held that proceedings
in a criminal case and departmental
proceedings can go on simultaneously
except where both the proceedings are
based on the same set of facts and the
evidence in both the proceedings is
common. In departmental proceedings,
factors prevailing in the mind of the
disciplinary authority may be many, such as
enforcement of discipline or to investigate
level of integrity of delinquent or other
staff. The standard of proof required in
those proceedings is also different from that
required in a criminal case. While in
departmental proceedings, the standard of
proof
is
one
of
preponderance
of
probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge
has to be proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Where the charge against
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the delinquent employee is of a grave
nature
which
involves
complicated
questions of law and fact, it is desirable to
stay the departmental proceedings till
conclusion of the criminal case. Where the
nature of charge in a criminal case is grave
and wherein complicated questions of fact
and law are involved, will depend upon the
nature of the defence, the nature of the case
launched against the employee on the basis
of evidence and material collected against
him during investigation or as reflected in
the charge-sheet. In case the criminal case
does
not
proceed
expeditiously,
the
departmental proceedings cannot be kept in
abeyance for ever and may be resumed and
proceeded with so as to conclude the same
at the early date. The purpose is that if the
employee is found not guilty his cause may
be vindictive, and in case he is found guilty,
administration may get rid of him at the
earliest.

14. Again in the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State Bank of India &
Ors. Vs. R.B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144,
same view has been reiterated observing
that
both
proceedings
can
be
held
simultaneously, except where departmental
proceedings in criminal case are based on
same set of facts and evidence in both the
proceedings
is
common.
The
Court
observed as under:-

"The purpose of departmental
inquiry and of prosecution are to put a
distinct aspect. Criminal prosecution is
launched for an offence for violation of
duty. The offender owes to the society, or
for breach of which law has provided that
the offender shall make satisfaction to the
public. So crime is an act of commission in
violation of law or of omission of a public
duty. The departmental inquiry is to
maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service."

15. While deciding the said case a
very heavy reliance has been placed upon
the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Depot Manager, Andhra
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation Vs. Mohd Yousuf Miya &
Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232, wherein it has
been held that both proceedings can be held
simultaneously unless the gravity of the
charges demand staying the disciplinary
proceedings till the trial is concluded as the
complicated questions of fact and law are
involved in that case.

16. A similar view has been reiterated
by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T. Srinivas, AIR
2004 SC 4127. A Three-Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnakali Tea
Estate Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor
Sangh & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 200
reconsidered all earlier judgments and
reiterated the same view, as the approach
and
the
objective
of
the
criminal
proceedings,
and
the
disciplinary
proceedings are distinct and different.
There can be no bar in carrying on the
criminal trial and criminal proceedings
simultaneously.

17. Thus, there can be no doubt
regarding the settled legal proposition that
as the standard of proof in both the
proceedings is quite different, and the
termination is not based on mere conviction
of an employee in a criminal case, the
acquittal of the employee in criminal case
cannot be the basis of taking away the
effect of departmental proceedings. Nor
such an action of the department can be
termed as double jeopardy. The submission
6 All. Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
925
made in this regard is untenable in view of
the law discussed herein above.

18. So far as the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner with
respect to quash the inquiry report, the
power of judicial review conferred on the
constitutional court or on the Tribunal is
not that of an appellate authority.

19. In the judgment of Apex Court in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC
1723, a three Judge Bench of this Court has
held that the High Court is not a court of
appeal over 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 prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated. The Apex Court held as under:-

"7. ...The High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution a court of appeal over 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
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Where there
is 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 in a petition for a writ under Article
226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence...."

20. In another judgment of B.C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 again, a
three Judge Bench of this Court has held
that power of 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 eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal
in its power of judicial review does not act
as an appellate authority to reappreciate the
evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. It
was held as under:-

"12. 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
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority to reappreciate 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.

13. The disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is
presented. The appellate authority has co-
extensive
power
to
reappreciate
the
evidence or the nature of punishment. In a
disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal
evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
reliability of evidence cannot be permitted
to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal.
In Union of India vs. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4
SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that
if the conclusion, upon consideration of the
evidence, reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of the record or based on
no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued."

21. Again in the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka &
Anr. v. N. Gangaraj reported in 2020 3
SCC 423, the Apex Court has held that
once the evidence has been accepted by the
departmental authority, in exercise of
power of judicial review, the Tribunal or
the High Court could not interfere with the
findings of facts recorded by reappreciating
evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate
Authority.

22. In another judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya,
(2011) 4 SCC 584, the Apex Court held that
the courts will not act as an appellate court
and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the
ground that another view is possible on the
material on record. If the enquiry has been
fairly and properly held and the findings
are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of the evidence or the reliable
nature of the evidence will not be ground
for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. The Court held as
under:-

"7. It is now well settled that the
courts will not act as an appellate court
and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the
ground that another view is possible on the
material on record. If the enquiry has been
fairly and properly held and the findings
are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of the evidence or the reliable
nature of the evidence will not be grounds
for
interfering
with
the
findings
in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts
will not interfere with findings of fact
recorded in departmental enquiries, except
where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly
perverse. The test to find out perversity is
to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably
could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. Courts
will however interfere with the findings in
disciplinary matters, if principles of natural
justice or statutory regulations have been
violated or if the order is found to be
arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on
6 All. Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
927
extraneous considerations, (vide B. C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6)
SCC
749,
Union
of
India
vs.
G.
Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank
of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999
(5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at
Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1)
SCC 416)."

23. In view of the above facts, reasons
and case laws so cited by the respective
parties, this Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the impugned
inquiry report dated 28.09.2021 submitted
by
the
respondent
no.3,
Enquiry
Officer/Inspector/RPF/Noapara,
Metro
Railway, Kolkata (Annexure No.10 to the
writ petition). Therefore, this writ petitioner
is liable to dismissed being misconceived.

24. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed being misconceived.

25. However, it is always open to the
disciplinary authority to proceed against the
petitioner strictly, in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)06ILR A927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ-A No. 42698 of 2010

Dashrath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.S. Chauhan, Sri Devesh Kumar, Sri
Dharmendra Singh, Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, Sri
Umesh Tripathi, Sri Utkarsh Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Vikram Bahadur
Yadav

(A) Service Law - Dismissal from service -
The U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991
- Rule 14 - Procedure for conducting
departmental proceedings.

Petitioner (constable) misbehaved with Station
Officer while he was drunk - complaint -
medical examination - suspended - preliminary
enquiry - no urine test or blood test conducted -
Appeal & revision dismissed.

HELD:-Report by Enquiry Officer become
erroneous in the absence of two tests. When
the Disciplinary Authority was punishing the
petitioner, it should have considered the fact
that the petitioner had not in any manner
indulged in any activity which could be termed
as "indiscipline". Impugned order quashed and
set aside. Petitioner entitled to all consequential
benefits.(Para - 6)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vs St. of Maha.
, (1971) 3 SCC 930

2. Krishna Kumar Vs U.O.I. , Writ-A No.67355 of
2007

3. Shiv Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,Writ-A
No.2230 of 2014

4. Supreme Court in St. of Uttaranchal & ors. Vs
Kharak Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 236

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram
Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against the order dated 31.10.2009 passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur