STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MURLIDHAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Murlidhar Jena was an officer in the Excise Department serving under appellant 1, the State of Orissa, and in course of time he rose to the rank of Senior Superintendent of Excise. Whilst he was working such Senior Superintendent in Ganjam District an enquiry was held against him in which three charges were broadly framed against him. It was alleged that he had put himself under an obligation to an excise vendor Harshabardhan Patnaik by name by receiving from him cash and gifts in kind from me to time. It was alleged that he had purchased an Austin Car 1951 Model at a concessional rate and that this transaction was done by him through M/s. Barjorji of Balasore who were interested in the shop of Harshabardhan Patnaik. The third charge framed against him was that some gold ornaments were prepared for him by the said Patnaik through a goldsmith of Berhampur Chhotalal by name. It appears that there was a preliminary investigation conducted by the Enforcement Department in this matter and at the end of the said enquiry proceedings were formally commenced against the respondent and they were referred to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951. During this enquiry oral evidence was led against the respondent and documents were proceed in support of the case against him. The Tribunal found that the first two charges were proved against him but the third was not though even in respect of the third charge there was ground for serious suspicion against him. The Tribunal accordingly recommended that the respondent should be dismissed from service. The matter was then referred to the Public Service Commission which agreed with the recommendation of the Tribunal. Appellant 1 considered the whole question, a fresh notice was issued against the respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed and ultimately an order of dismissal was passed against him on September, 17, 1956.

(2.) The respondent then filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and challenged the validity of the said order. In this petition he impleaded appellant 1 and the Secretary of the appellant in the Political and Services Department (Administrative Tribunal Section), appellant 2. The High Court has in substance held that the findings made against the respondent by the Administrative Tribunal which have been accepted by appellant 1 are based on no evidence at all, and so purporting to exercise its jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 the High Court has set aside those findings and the order of dismissal based on them. It is against this order of the High Court quashing the impugned order of dismissal that the appellants have come to this Court by special leave.

(3.) In the present appeal it has been urged before us by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri on behalf of the appellants that the view taken by the High Court that the findings of the Tribunal were not supported by any evidence is obviously incorrect and that the High Court has in fact purported to reappreciate the evidence which it had no jurisdiction to do. It is common-around that in proceedings under Arts. 226 and 227 the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent tribunal in a departmental enquiry so that if we are satisfied that in the present case the High Court has purported to reappreciate the evidence for itself that would be outside its jurisdiction. It is also common-ground that if it is shown that the impugned findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal are not supported by any evidence the High Court would be justified in setting aside the said findings. That is how the narrow question which falls for our decision in the present appeal is:Was the High Court right in holding that there was no evidence on which the findings of the Administrative Tribunal could be sustained