Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a police constable challenging his dismissal from service. The Court held that the inquiry authority and disciplinary authorities had conducted the proceedings in accordance with law, provided sufficient opportunity to defend, and based their findings on some evidence. The Court emphasised:
“Judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process… the High Court does not sit as a court of appeal.”
It concluded that there was no violation of natural justice or statutory rules, and that punishment imposed was not so disproportionate as to shock judicial conscience. The petition was dismissed without costs.
Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a police constable in 1990 and confirmed in service in 1994. While posted at Cortalim Outpost in April 2000, he and colleagues faced a mob attack of 100–250 armed persons shouting threats against the police. He sustained injuries and took shelter nearby.
The next day, his statement was recorded by the police, allegedly containing names of assailants. He later contested that he never identified anyone by name and only said he could identify them by face. Subsequently, he was asked to rewrite a dictated statement including names and weapons, which he claims he did under protest.
When his statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he stated truthfully that he could not name anyone but could identify faces. Departmental proceedings followed. He was charged with “cowardice, treachery, and fellow feeling” for resiling from earlier statements and failing to uphold integrity as a police officer.
The inquiry was conducted with examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The inquiry officer found him guilty, leading to dismissal from service in 2002. Appeals and revisions failed, including one before the Chief Secretary under Rule 19A of the Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. The present writ petition sought to quash those orders and reinstate him..
Issues
- Whether the departmental inquiry violated principles of natural justice or statutory rules.
- Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to misconduct justifying dismissal.
- Whether failure to question him under Rule 6(17) of the Rules vitiated the inquiry.
- Whether judicial review under Article 226 allows reappreciation of evidence.
- Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Rule 6(17) of the 1975 Rules made it mandatory for the inquiry officer to question him if he did not examine himself, but this was not done, vitiating the inquiry. He contended that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate was truthful and consistent with his inability to identify attackers by name. The earlier statement was wrongly attributed and dictated under duress.
It was further argued that the revisional inquiry by the Superintendent of Police was flawed and violated natural justice. He claimed he was victimised despite acting truthfully, and that the departmental authorities misconstrued his actions as misconduct. Reliance was placed on Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2482/2014, where the Supreme Court emphasised fairness in criminal and departmental proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct unbecoming of a disciplined police force. His resiling from earlier statements and refusal to name assailants showed lack of integrity. The disciplinary authority’s findings were based on evidence, including testimony of officers who deposed that he had identified assailants by name earlier.
It was submitted that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the sufficiency or reliability of evidence. The punishment of dismissal was proportionate given the seriousness of the misconduct.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents:
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 310 – judicial review does not allow reappraisal of evidence.
- Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 309 – departmental inquiries cannot be interfered with unless perverse.
- State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta (1996) 6 SCC 486 – proportionality of punishment must respect disciplinary authority’s domain.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that election petitions or service matters involving disciplinary proceedings are governed strictly by statutory procedure. Judicial review is confined to ensuring competence of authority, adherence to procedure, and observance of natural justice. Rule 6(17) was interpreted as discretionary, meant to protect delinquents from inadvertent omissions, not to be exploited when consciously avoiding evidence.
The Court found that the petitioner was given repeated opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and present defence but chose not to examine himself. Hence, natural justice was satisfied.
Precedent Analysis
- State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao (1963 AIR 1723) – High Court cannot act as appellate authority in disciplinary matters.
- State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 – judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
- Man Mohan Nath Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 310 – adequacy or reliability of evidence not subject to writ jurisdiction.
- Vinod Kumar (2014) – relied upon by petitioner, but distinguished as it related to criminal proceedings, not service misconduct.
These authorities collectively supported the conclusion that the findings, being based on some evidence, could not be termed perverse.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- There was evidence before the inquiry officer that the petitioner had earlier identified assailants by name, and his subsequent denial before the Magistrate amounted to resiling.
- Rule 6(17) was not violated since the petitioner voluntarily chose not to examine himself despite being asked.
- Principles of natural justice were followed: he was represented, cross-examined witnesses, and submitted defence.
- Judicial review cannot re-weigh evidence; the inquiry findings were not perverse.
- The punishment of dismissal, though harsh, was not disproportionate for a member of disciplined police force.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding dismissal from service. It held that the departmental inquiry was legally valid, principles of natural justice were observed, and judicial review cannot reappraise evidence.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot act as appellate bodies in departmental inquiries. Employees of disciplined forces face higher expectations, and acts perceived as protecting accused or resiling from duty can justify severe penalties. For service law, it reiterates that unless findings are perverse or procedure unlawful, writ jurisdiction cannot interfere.
FAQs
Q1. Can the High Court re-examine evidence in departmental inquiries?
No. The High Court held that judicial review is limited to examining procedure and fairness, not re-weighing evidence.
Q2. Was Rule 6(17) of the Goa Police Service Rules violated in this case?
No. The Court held that the petitioner was given opportunity to examine himself but chose not to, hence cannot claim benefit of the Rule.
Q3. Can dismissal from service be interfered with for being disproportionate?
Only if punishment shocks judicial conscience. Here, dismissal for resiling from statements was held proportionate for a police constable.
