1999 (9) TMI 950 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Reappraisal of evidence by the court.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the High Court to impose the punishment of dismissal. The Supreme Court referred to Article 235 of the Constitution, which vests control over subordinate courts in the High Court. The Court upheld the practice of a Disciplinary Committee, authorized by a Full Court Resolution, to act on behalf of the High Court. The decision in *State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi* was cited, affirming that the High Court can act through a committee for disciplinary matters. The Court concluded that the recommendation to dismiss the appellant made by the Disciplinary Committee was valid and not open to challenge on the grounds that it was not made by the Full Court.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the Disciplinary Committee violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing before disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's findings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority must provide an opportunity of hearing if it disagrees with the Enquiry Officer's findings, as per the principles laid down in *Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra*. The Court found that the Disciplinary Committee had taken a final decision that the charges were proved without giving the appellant a chance to be heard at that stage, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

3. Reappraisal of Evidence by the Court:
The appellant argued that the findings of the Disciplinary Committee were not supported by evidence and were perverse. The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations and noted that the trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau had failed. The Court held that the Disciplinary Committee's findings were based on surmises and conjectures, and it had failed to consider the defense witnesses' statements. The Court reiterated that it could interfere if the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence, as established in *Kuldeep Singh vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.*

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, and quashed the order of dismissal dated 08.11.1993. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, to be paid within three months.