BADRIDAN BHERAVADAN GADHAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the appellant is that the finding of the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence but simply on conjectures and surmises and therefore violative of the principles of natural justice and hence the dismissal order is required to be quashed.

(2.) It is settled law that while dealing with such a matter a Civil Court does not sit in appeal against the judgment of the disciplinary authority. There are various limitations imposed upon the Civil Court while dealing with such a matter But there are two exceptions to this general rule and they are:(1) where the decision is based on no evidence and (2) where the decision is perverse or unreasonable the Civil Court can interfere with the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority. These two exception have common elements. No evidence does not merely signify total dearth of evidence evidence which does * * * * * * * * * * * to apply as much as it applies to regular criminal trials. The Division Bench further observed that in the ultimate analysis the test which must be applied is whether there is some material capable of having any evidential value. It not the case must be held to fall within the mischief on the rule of no evidence. It is true that these observations have been made by the Division Bench while dealing with a Special Civil Application but there is no reason why the same principle should not be applied while dealing with a civil suit challenging the dismissal of a Government servant. 8 In the case of Union of India v. H. C. Goel A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364 the Supreme Court has observed that while inquiring into the question of dismissal of a Government servant the High Court can inquire whether the order is based on no evidence and that mala fide exercise of power need not be shown to prove that the order is based on no evidence. The Supreme Court held in that case that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the government a writ of certiorari will issue without further proof of mala fides. While dealing with this question the Supreme Court observed that in dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311(2) the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to inquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. The Supreme Court further observed that although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct. can be described as an administrative order nevertheless the proceedings held against such in public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether the is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari for instance can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisFy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings which is the basis of his dismissal is based on no evidence.

(3.) In Union of India v. B. K. Dutta 1974(2) S.L.R. 98 the Rajasthan High Court has while disposing of a Second Appeal reiterated the same principle and observed that the Court can go into evidence and come to the conclusion that the findings in departmental inquiry are based on no evidence and that no inference of guilt can be drawn from the evidence. The Rajasthan High Court has observed at para 17 that it was true that the Court cannot sit in judgment over findings arrived at in the departmental enquiry but if * * * * * and has been strongly punished. * * * * the order of dismissal has to be quashed. Appeal allowed.