1978 (4) TMI 235 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms removal from government service based on misconduct and upholds High Court decision

NAND KISHORE PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case concerning the legality of the appellant's removal from government service. The appellant's ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the appellant's removal from government service.2. Adequacy of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.3. High Court's jurisdiction in reappraising evidence in writ petitions.Summary:1. Legality of the appellant's removal from government service:The appellant, Nand Kishore Prasad, was removed from government service following allegations of dishonestly receiving Rs. 1,068/- and conspiring to misappropriate the amount. The Commissioner reversed the District Magistrate's order, which had dropped proceedings due to insufficient evidence, and directed the appellant's removal from service. The appellant's revision to the Board of Revenue was dismissed, and his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was also dismissed by the Patna High Court.2. Adequacy of evidence in disciplinary proceedings:The disciplinary inquiry, held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram, concluded with the District Magistrate finding the appellant's conduct suspicious but dropping proceedings due to insufficient evidence. The Commissioner, however, found 'strong suspicion' against the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's initials on Money Order coupons and his failure to take further action for the realization of the fine. The High Court noted that while the Commissioner's order was cryptic, it was supported by circumstantial evidence and the Board of Revenue's more detailed order.3. High Court's jurisdiction in reappraising evidence in writ petitions:The appellant contended that the impugned orders were based on suspicions and conjectures, not evidence, and that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reappraising evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence pointing to the guilt of the delinquent. The High Court examined the record to ensure the impugned orders were based on circumstantial evidence, not to reconstruct a new case. The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted appropriately and that the impugned orders did not suffer from any error of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the impugned orders were based on circumstantial evidence and did not warrant interference in writ proceedings. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.