1975 (8) TMI 134 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interference by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal.
2. Admissibility and reliance on Exhibit P-45.
3. Scope of Article 226 in departmental inquiries.
4. Non-supply of 'B' Report and Investigation Report to the respondent.

Summary:

1. Interference by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal:
The principal question canvassed was whether the High Court should have interfered with the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had found the respondent guilty of charges related to false claims for travelling allowance and recommended dismissal. The High Court set aside the dismissal, stating that the prosecution did not adduce every material and essential evidence to make out the charges and that the Tribunal's conclusion was not based on evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in re-assessing the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for those of the Tribunal.

2. Admissibility and reliance on Exhibit P-45:
The High Court doubted the admissibility of Exhibit P-45, a signed statement by the respondent, and considered it unsafe to rely on. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal had given the respondent full opportunity to deal with Exhibit P-45 and found it genuine. The High Court's approach to treating the enquiry as a criminal prosecution was incorrect.

3. Scope of Article 226 in departmental inquiries:
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 226, the High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. The High Court should not review the evidence or arrive at an independent finding unless there is a violation of natural justice or statutory rules. The findings of fact by the Tribunal should not be questioned unless there is no evidence to support them. The High Court erred in re-assessing the evidence and setting aside the Tribunal's conclusions.

4. Non-supply of 'B' Report and Investigation Report to the respondent:
The respondent contended that the 'B' Report and Investigation Report were not provided to him. The High Court did not address this issue as it set aside the dismissal on other grounds. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal did not rely on these reports to support the charges but only referred to them in the context of the respondent's challenge to Exhibit P-45's genuineness. The Tribunal's findings were based on other evidence, and the non-supply of these reports did not affect the outcome.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the Tribunal's findings and the dismissal order. The High Court's interference with the Tribunal's findings and re-assessment of evidence was deemed unjustified.