# STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. SREE RAMA RAO

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 25
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-s-sree-rama-rao-2887
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

L.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
S. SREE RAMA RAO
(B. P. SINHA C. ]., ]. C. SHAH and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARjj.)
25
Public Se-rvant-Disoiplinary
action-Writ PetitionInterference by High Gourt-Pri1'ciples-Gonstitution of India,
Art. 226.
The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge 01
a police station. One D, suspected of having committed an
offence, was apprehended by the village Munsif and was sent
to the p•,lice station. He was handed over to the respondent.
The respondent declined to give a written acknowledgment of
having received D and made no entries in the station diary
re1:arding him.
D was confined in the police station for
several days without being produced before a Magistrate. A
departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible
conduct in wrongfully confining D. The defence set up by
him was that D had never been handed over to him because
he had escaped while on his way to the police station. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry, found
him guilty of the charge.
The Deputy Inspector-General of
Police gave him a show cause notice and after considering his
explanation ordered that he be dismissed from service. On
appeal, the Inspector-General of Police modified the order of
dismissal and converted it into one for re1noval fro1n service.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the validity of the order and the High Court
quashed the orders.
Held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere
with the orders. The High Court was wrong in its view that
in a· departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal
trial that an offence is not established unless proved by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt to tbe satisfaction of the
court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied
the high court could set aside the order of the departmental
authority in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the constitution. The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over
\he decision of the authority holding a departmental enquiry :
J96S
April JQ
196J
SW1 of Andhr~
Pr•tl1Jh
y,
S. Sr11 Ramil RllD
26
SUPREKtE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL;
it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held by a
competent auth•)rity and according to the procedure prescribed
and whether the rul•" of natural justice have been observed.
Where there is some evidence which the authority has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that the .officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High
Court exercising its juriidiction under Art. 226 to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the
evidence. If the enquiry has been properly held the question
of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be convassed
before the High Court. In the present case, the proceedings
before the departmental authorities were regular, no rules of
natural justice were voilated, the conclusions were borne out
by the evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity
of examining his witnesses. Therefore, the conclusions of the
punishing authority were not open to be questioned before
the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLA'l'E JuRISDWTJON: Civil Appeal
No. 626of1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated November 18, 1959, of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 922 of
"
1956.
T. V. R. Tataahari and P. D. Menon, for the
_ appellants.
K. Bhimas:i,nkaram and T. Satyariarayana,
for the respondent.
1963. April 10.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAHj.-On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra, passed an
order dismissing the n·spondent (who was a sub-inspector of police appointed on probation) from service. On
appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order
was altered into one of rem ova 1 from -service.
The
respondent then moved the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh by a petition under Art. 22G of the Constitutiop for a writ of certiorari or other appro

## Text

L.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
S. SREE RAMA RAO
(B. P. SINHA C. ]., ]. C. SHAH and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARjj.)
25
Public Se-rvant-Disoiplinary
action-Writ PetitionInterference by High Gourt-Pri1'ciples-Gonstitution of India,
Art. 226.
The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police in charge 01
a police station. One D, suspected of having committed an
offence, was apprehended by the village Munsif and was sent
to the p•,lice station. He was handed over to the respondent.
The respondent declined to give a written acknowledgment of
having received D and made no entries in the station diary
re1:arding him.
D was confined in the police station for
several days without being produced before a Magistrate. A
departmental inquiry was started against him for reprehensible
conduct in wrongfully confining D. The defence set up by
him was that D had never been handed over to him because
he had escaped while on his way to the police station. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, who held the enquiry, found
him guilty of the charge.
The Deputy Inspector-General of
Police gave him a show cause notice and after considering his
explanation ordered that he be dismissed from service. On
appeal, the Inspector-General of Police modified the order of
dismissal and converted it into one for re1noval fro1n service.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the validity of the order and the High Court
quashed the orders.
Held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere
with the orders. The High Court was wrong in its view that
in a· departmental enquiry the rule followed in a criminal
trial that an offence is not established unless proved by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt to tbe satisfaction of the
court must be applied and that if such a rule was not applied
the high court could set aside the order of the departmental
authority in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the constitution. The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal over
\he decision of the authority holding a departmental enquiry :
J96S
April JQ
196J
SW1 of Andhr~
Pr•tl1Jh
y,
S. Sr11 Ramil RllD
26
SUPREKtE COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL;
it has only to see whether the enquiry has been held by a
competent auth•)rity and according to the procedure prescribed
and whether the rul•" of natural justice have been observed.
Where there is some evidence which the authority has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that the .officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High
Court exercising its juriidiction under Art. 226 to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the
evidence. If the enquiry has been properly held the question
of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be convassed
before the High Court. In the present case, the proceedings
before the departmental authorities were regular, no rules of
natural justice were voilated, the conclusions were borne out
by the evidence and the respondent had ample opportunity
of examining his witnesses. Therefore, the conclusions of the
punishing authority were not open to be questioned before
the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLA'l'E JuRISDWTJON: Civil Appeal
No. 626of1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated November 18, 1959, of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 922 of
"
1956.
T. V. R. Tataahari and P. D. Menon, for the
_ appellants.
K. Bhimas:i,nkaram and T. Satyariarayana,
for the respondent.
1963. April 10.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SHAHj.-On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra, passed an
order dismissing the n·spondent (who was a sub-inspector of police appointed on probation) from service. On
appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order
was altered into one of rem ova 1 from -service.
The
respondent then moved the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh by a petition under Art. 22G of the Constitutiop for a writ of certiorari or other appro:priate
..
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
27
writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the
Inspector General of Police including his order
dated September 24, 1955, and the order of the
Deputy
Inspector
General of
Police
dated
March 10, 1955, and for such other orders as the
Court may deem fit.
The High Court quashed the
two impugned orders.
Against the order passed by
the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special
leave .
It is necessary to set out in some detail the
facts which gave rise to the departmental proceedings against the respondent resulting in his removal
from service. The respondent was at the material
time in charge of the police station Kodur, Visakhapatnam District. On February 18, 1954, an offence
of house-breaking and theft was reported at the
police station and was registered on February 19,1954.
It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of
Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be the offender. This Durgalu
was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla
on March 5, 1954, and was handed over to the
Village Munsif of Vechalam, who in his turn sent
Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants
V.
Polayya, Vechalapu Simhachalam, Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram. It is the
case of the State that Durgalu was handed over to
the respondent on the night of March 5, 1954, but no
written acknowledgment in token of having received
Durgalu from the village servants was given by the
respondent, nor was any entry posted in the station
diary, and Durgalu was thereafter confined in the
police station from the night of March 5, 1954,
witho'!t any. order from a · Magistrate remanding
him to police custody.
On March 7, 1954, the
respondent entrusted charge of the police station to a
head constable and left for Kakinada on casual leave
for
five
days.
He returned
to
Kodur on
March 12, 1954. After the departure of the respondent,
196'
Stat1 tJj Andhr11
Prad11h
v.
S, Sr11 Rama R1•
Shah J.
19~3
Stwte of Andhra
Pradesh
v.
S. Sree Rama RaD
Shah J.
SUPREME COURT RBPOR TS [1964] VOL.
some constables arrested one Reddy Simhachalam and brought him to the police station in the
evening of March 7, 1954. It is the case of the State
that as a result of torture by police constables
Nos. 119!l, 363 and 662,
Reddy
Simhachalam
became unconscious.
The dead body of Reddy
Simhachalam was found floating in a well near the
police station on the morning of March 9, 1954, and
an enquiry into the circumstances in which the death
took place was commenced by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. In the enquiry, Durgalu
made a statement that he had witnessed the torture
of Reddy Simhachalam, in the police station, by the
three constables.
Police constables Nos. 1199, 363
and 662 were then charged before the Sub·Magistrate,
Chodavaram, for offences under ss. 304(2) and 201 .
read withs. 114 I. P. Code, for causing the death of
Reddy Simhachalam by torturing him and for
causing disappearence of the evidence of his death.
Before the Sub.Magistrate, Durgalu retracted his
earlier statement and stated that the statement that
he was an eye-witness to the torture of Reddy
Simhachalam was untrue and that he was induced
to make that statement by the police. He deposed
that he had escaped from the cust0dy of the village
servants before he reached the police-station Kodur
on March 5, 1954, and that he was re-arrested on
March 8, 1954. The Sub.Magistrate discharged
the police constables holding that once Durgalu the
only eye-witness turned hostile, there was no direct
evidence on which even a prima. facie case could .
be made out against them. The record of the case
before the Sub- Magistrate was called by the Sessions
Judge, Visakhapatnam, suo motu.
The Sessions
Judge held it proved on the evidence that Durgalu
was arrested on March 5, 1954 and was taken to the
police-station Kodur and was wrongfully confined
since that date in the police station, and the story of
Durgalu before the Sub-Magistrate that after he
was arrested on March 5, 1954 and was taken to the
•
I
..
!>--
-
•
I
-
- ·'"'
•
a S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
29
Kodur village on that very day he had escaped from
custody and that he remained in his village Vechalam could not be believed.
A departmental enquiry was commenced in
May 1954 against the respondent. The charge in
the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent
after it was amended ran as follows :-
"Reprehensible conduct in worngfully confining a K.D., Chandana Durgalu accused in
Cr. No.17/54 of Kodur Police Station from the
night of 5-3-54 to 7-3-1954 in the Police
Station when he went on five days casual
leave."
To the charge was appended a "statement of facts"
reciting inter alia, that Dur~alu was apprehended by
the Village Munsif, Kaligotla and was handed over
to the Village Munsif, Vechalam, that Durgalu was
sent by the latter with the written report with the
assistance of village servants, that on the same night
the latter handed over Durgalu to the respondent in
the police station Kodur at about 12 mid-night, with
the report of the Village Munsif and demanded
acknowledgment but the
acknowledgment
was
refused by the respondent, and that the respondent
did not mention these facts in any of the station
records and wrongfully confined Durgalu in the
police station till March 7, 1954, when he proceeded
on casual leave for five days.
This, the "statement
of facts" added, constituted grave and reprehensible
conduct and hence the charge.
The respondent
submitted an explanation in which he submitted that
Durgalu
was
not
handed
over
to him on
March 5, 1954, as alleged nor at any time before
he proceeded on March 7, 1954, on casual leave.
His plea was that when he proceeded on leave he
entrusted charge of the police station to the head
constable leaving instructions to trace Durgalu and
to take action .
1963
Stal• of Alldhra
Pratksh
v.
S. Srtt RGma Ra•
Sh«h I.
1969
Slate of Andhra
Prad<Sh
v.
S. Sr11 Rsma Riro
Sh.Jo J.
ao
SUPREME COUR t REPORTS [1964} VC):t.;
The Deputy Superintendent of Police held the
departmental enquiry and submitted his report on
October 27, 1954, setting out the evidence of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the State and the
respondent, and summing up the conclusion by reciting that the evidence in the case for the State made
out a strong case against the respondent, that it was
established that Durgalu was arrested on March 5,
1954, and was sent by the Village Munsif to
Vechalam who in his ·turn sent him with the village
servants to the police station Kodur, and Durgalu
was handed over to the respondent on the night of
March 5, 1954, that the story of Durgalu that after
he was arrested on March 5, 1954, he escaped from
the custody of the village servants and was again .
arrested on March 8, l!J54, was false.
The report
then concluded "All these facts go to show that he
was arrested on the 5th without a shadow of doubt,
but if the judgment of the learned Court which is
based on the
retracted statement of Durgalu is
considered the 'sacred truth' the delinquent may have
benefit of doubt." This report was considered by
the authority competent to impose punishment and
a provisional conclusion that the respondent merited
punishment of dismissal for the charges held established by the report was recorded. A copy of the
report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the respondent and he was called upon to submit his representation against the action proposed to be taken in
regard to him. The respondent submitted his representation which was
considered by the Deputy
Inspector
General
of Police, Northern Range,
Waltair. That Officer referred to the evidence of
witnesses for the State about the arrest of Durgalu
on March 5, 1954, and the handing over of Durgalu
to the respondent on the same day.
He observed
that the evidence of Durgalu that after he was
arrested on March 5, 1954, he had made good his
escape and was again arrested on March 8, 1954,
could not be accepted. Holding that the charge
,
-
{
~ .
•
3 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
against the respondent was serious and had on the
evidence been adequately proved, in his view the
only punishment which the respondent deserved was
of dismissal from the police force.
In appeal the Inspector General of Police
accepted
the evidence of the witnesses who had
deposed that they had handed over Durgalu to the
respondent
on March 5,
1954. In his view the
respondent had "betrayed gross
dishonesty and
lack of character in falsifying the records by omitting
to write what he had done and what happened in
the police station, thereby proving himself thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy,'' and "showing
himself unfit to hold the responsible post of a SubInspector of police," and that "his records as a probationary Sub-Inspector of police are generally
unsatisfactory
and he has earned a reputation for
inefficiency and lack of interest in work for weakness
in dealing with his subordinates, which are all attributes that militate against his becoming useful SubInspector of Police." But taking into consideration
his young age and
inexperience, the Inspector
General of Police reduced the order of dismissal into
one for removal from service.
In the departmental proceeding a simple
question of fact fell to be determined-viz. whether
Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954, and was
delivered over by the village servants to the respondent at police station Kodur on the night of
March 5, 1954. There is no dispute that Durgalu
was arrested on March 5, 1954, and was sent by the
Village Munsif, Vechalam with his report to the
police station Kodur. The only question in dispute
was whether Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on M.irch 5, 1954, as stated by the witnesses
for the State. The case of the State was accepted
by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who
passed the order of dismissal and the lrupcctor
1963
Stot1 •! AMltr•
Prauh
v.
S. Sr11 Rtna R•o
Sh.la J,
1965
Slate af Antl~ra
Pradesh
v.
.
S. Sr11 Rama R5o
Shah J.
32 SUPREME COURT REPOR. ts [1964] VOL,
General of Police in appeal. But the High Court
declined to accept this view of the evidence.
In so
doing, with respect it must be observed, the High
Court assumed to itself jurisdiction which it did not
possess.
The High Court was of the view that the
conclusioI,1 of the departmental authorities was
vitiated, because the Enquiry Officer dealt with the
evidences of witnesses for the State, and the witnesses
for the respondent separately, and the Deputy
Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General
of Police did not in recording their orders refer to
all the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer and
they "failed to appreciate the full significance of
the rule concerning the onus of proving. The rule
meant that everything essential to the establishment
of a charge lies on the person, who seeks to establish
the charge. It further means that the two sets ·of
evidence in the case must not be examined separately
in order to ascertain first whether those for establishing the charge have proved it and then to examine
the defence in order to see how far the conclusions
are unjustified. The better approach, which has
been described as the golden thread in the web of
criminal law is to examine the law, the whole
evidence in order to ascertain how far the liability
of the person proceeded against has been established
beyond reasonable doubt". The High Court then
observed that ordinarily the conclusions on questions
of fact by a body or tribunal in a proceeding under
Art. 226 of the Constitution are accepted by the
High Court but that general rule does not apply
"whenever an important principle of jurisprudence is
discarded in reaching such findings", and since the
fundamental rule' that a person should be punished
only after the entire evidence in the case had been
considered and he is found liable beyond reasonable
doubt, had not been followed, the conclusions of the
departmental authorities were vitiated. The High
Court again observed that the orders passed by the.
departmental authorities were vitiated because of two
,
,.
•
...
-
r
~ . . ,
..
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT. REPORTS33
·other matters : ~ (if that the Enquiry Officer declined
to summon and examine two witnesses for the defence
even though a request. in that behalf was made ; and
(ii) that there was no charge against the respondent
of "falsifying· the record by omitting to write what
he had done or what happened in the police station",
and he had not been given an opportunity of meeting
such a charge and ;therefore the respondent had no
fair hearing consistent with the principles of. natural
justice.
There is no warrant for the view expressed by
the High Court that in considering whether a . public
·officer is guilty of the misconduct charged. against·
him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an
offence is not . established unless . proved by evidence
beyond reasonable doubL to. the satisfaction' of• the
Court, must be applied, ·and if that. rule be not
applied, the High Court in a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution jg competent . to declare the order
of the authorities holding· a departm-ental enquiry
invalid •. The 'High. Court is not constituted in a·
proceeding under Art. 226 ·of the Constitution a
Court of appeal over -the decision pf the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against ·a public
servant:: it is concerned to determine whether the.
enquiry is held by an authority competentin 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 wrii under
Art. 226 to review· the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. · The· High
Court may undoubtedly. interfere' where the depart--
mental authorities have held the proceedings -against
the deli~qaent in a manner inconsistent with the
/
'
.1953·
·.St~l6 ef A11Jltr•
Pratlesh ·
...
S. Sre1 RtJma Rao
·Shafi J.
i
1963
Stale of Alldhft1
PratUJh
v,
'\, ~1et Roma Rao
:.nah J.
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]'VOh.
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 of the case or by allowing
· bemselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerawns or where the conclusion on the very face of it
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reason:
able person could 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
lega·l evidence on which their findings can be based,
the 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
Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The Enquiry Officer had accepted the evidence
of witnesses for the Sate that Durgalu was handed
over to the respondent on March 5, 1954, and the observation that the respondent may ~ave the benefit
of doubt if the judgment of _the Magistrate is considered "sacred truth" appears to have been made in
a somewhat sarcastic vein, and doe5 not cast any
doubt upon the conclusion recorded by him. The
Enquiry Officer appears to have stated that the judgment of the Magistrate holding a criminal trial
against a public servant could not always be regarded as binding in a departmental enquiry against
that public servant. In so stating the Enquiry
Officer did not commit any error. The first ground
on which the High C~urt interfered with the order
of the punishing authorities is therefore wholly
unsustainable.
· The two other grounds on which the High Court
also based its conclusion, namely, refusal to summon
and examine witnesses for the respondent and holding
the respondent guilty of a charge of which he ,had no
,-
-._
....
•
- •
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
35
notice are equally without substance. It appears
that the respondent desired to examine police constables Nos. 178, 506 and 569 to prove that Durgalu
was not in the lock-up till March 8, HJ54.
Pulice
constable No. 50ti was examined as a witness for
the respondent, and the Enquiry Officer has not
accepted his evidence. The other two witnesses were
neither summoned nor examined, but it appears
from
the record that on September 20, 1954, the
respondent promised to produce the witnesses whom
he had cited in his defence.
At the hearing dated
September 26, 1954, three witnesses were examined
by the respondent and the respondent was given
another opportunity to secure the presence of the
remaining defence witnesses.
On September '27,
195!
police constable 506
was examined and it
appears that the respondent expressed his desire not
to examime any more witnesses. In the proceeding
of the Enquiry Officer there is a note that "your
defence witnesses
have been examined and such
documents you required have been produced and
exhibited". The respondent subscribed his signature
in acknowledgment of the correctness of that recital.
He did not raise any objection in the representation
made by him before the Deputy Inspector General
of Police when notice was issued on him to show
cause why he should not be punished. In the memo
of appeal to the Inspector General of Police, it was
submitted by the respondent that the police witnesses
were to be summoned by the Enquiry Officer, and
that he did not summon them. It was also submitted
that the .statement signed by the respondent was
only in respect of private witnesses,. and not police
witnesses.
But· the endorsement made by the Enquiry
Officer is not susceptible of any such interpretation,
which refers to all witnesses for the respondent.
The record does not show that an application for
summoning the police witnesses was made and the
Enquiry Officer in bre~ch of . the rules ?ech~ed to
summon them. · We are m the light of tlus evidence
State of A.ndhra
Pralesh
v.
3. Sr1e Rama Rao
"hah J.
1963
Slate of A11tllero
Prad11h
v.
S. Sree llama Rao
Shah J.
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
of the· view that the respondent did not, after the
examination of police constable No. 506, desire to
examine the two police constables Nos. 178 and 569,
whom he originally wanted to examine.
It was next urged that the findings recorded
were not in respect of the charge which the respondent was called upon to answer, The charge against .
the respondent was that he had wrongfully confined
Durgalu on March 5, 1954, to March 7, 1954, in
the police station.
In the statement
of facts
which accompanied the charge-sheet it was stated in
express terms that .the respondent had not recorded
in any of the diaries of the police station that
Dllrgalu was handed over to him on March 5, 1954.
The charge and the "statement of facts" form part of
a single document on the basis of which proceedings
were started against the respondent and it would be
hypercritical to proceed on the view that though the
respondent was expressly told in the statement of
facts which formed part of the charge-sheet, that he
had failed to record that Durgalu was handed over
to him, that ground of 'reprehensible conduct' was
not included in the charge, and on that account the
enquiry was vitiated. No objection appears to have
been raised before the Deputy Inspector General.
or even the
Inspector General of police, that
there was infirmity in the charge on that account,
and that infirmity had prejudiced the respondent in
the enquiry. The respondent had full notice of the
charge against him, and he examined witnesses in
support of his defence and made several argumentative representations before the Deputy Inspector
General, the Inspector General of Police and the
Government of Andhra Pradesh.
In our Judgment the proceedings before the
departmental authorities were regular and were not
vitiated on account of any breach. of the rules of
.-1 -
·-·
. -
•·
natural justice. The conclusions of the departmental
.._ -
......
...
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
officers were fully borne out by the evidence before
them and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set
aside the order either on the ground that the "ap·
proach to the evidence was not consistent with the
approach in a criminal case," nor on the ground that
the High Court would have on that evidence come
to a different conclusion.
The respondent had also
ample opportunity of examining his witnesses after
he was informed of the charge against him. The
conclusion recorded by the punishing authority was
therefore not open to be canvassed, nor was the liability of the respondent to be punished by removal
from service open to question befor~ the High Court.
The appeal is allowed and the order passed by
the High Court is set aside. The petition filed by the
respondent is dismissed.
There will be no order as
to costs. The order as to costs pa~sed by the High
Court will stand.
Appeal allowed.
1963
Slot1 of Anihra
Prad11Js
v.
S. Sr11 Rama Rao
~hah J.