9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of Government to differ from findings of the enquiry officer. 2. High Court's authority to hold that Government's conclusion on misconduct is unsupported by evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of Government to differ from findings of the enquiry officer: The first question addressed was whether the Government is competent to differ from the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer during a departmental enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Court affirmed that the Government is indeed competent to take a different view on the evidence adduced against the respondent and proceed on the basis that the conclusions of fact recorded by the enquiry officer were unsound and erroneous. The Court emphasized that the enquiry officer acts as a delegate of the Government, and the findings and recommendations made by the enquiry officer are intended merely to supply appropriate material for the consideration of the Government. The Government is not bound by these findings and can either agree or disagree with them. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer bind the Government, stating that such a proposition would lead to illogical and almost fantastic results, undermining the Government's constitutional rights as the appointing authority. 2. High Court's authority to hold that Government's conclusion on misconduct is unsupported by evidence: The second question was whether the High Court, in dealing with a writ petition filed by a dismissed Government officer, is entitled to hold that the Government's conclusion regarding his misconduct is not supported by any evidence at all. The Court affirmed that the High Court has jurisdiction to inquire whether the Government's conclusion is supported by any evidence. The Court clarified that while the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not within the High Court's purview, it can and must inquire whether there is any evidence at all to support the impugned conclusion. The Court found that the conclusion of the Government that the respondent had attempted to offer a bribe was based on no evidence. The evidence presented, particularly the testimony of Mr. Rajagopalan, did not substantiate the charge that the respondent attempted to offer a bribe. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof, even in domestic enquiries, and that scrupulous care must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not punished. Conclusion: The Court concluded that while the Government is competent to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer, the High Court was justified in quashing the dismissal order as the Government's conclusion was based on no evidence. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
|
