Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling, supports Tribunal's findings. High Court erred in reevaluating evidence.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence, and the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and assuming an unqualified assurance was given to the respondent. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of findings by the Administrative Tribunal.
2. High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
3. Evidence supporting the Tribunal's findings.
4. Assurance given to the respondent regarding evidence use.
5. Proof of the rough account book (Ex. 7).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Findings by the Administrative Tribunal:
The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of two charges: receiving illegal gratifications and purchasing an Austin Car at a concessional rate. The Tribunal concluded that the first charge was substantiated by oral evidence and documents, specifically Exs. 6 and 7, which were account books kept by Mr. Patnaik. The Tribunal also established that the respondent received a fan purchased by Mr. Patnaik. Regarding the second charge, the Tribunal noted the large discount given to the respondent and the unusual method of purchasing the car through Messrs. Barjorji. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent used his influence to receive concessions not typically available to ordinary customers. The third charge, concerning gold ornaments, was not proven, but there was serious suspicion against the respondent.

2. High Court's Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's findings and the dismissal order, stating that the findings were based on no evidence. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227. The High Court's role is limited to checking if there is any evidence supporting the Tribunal's findings. If the findings are supported by evidence, the High Court should not interfere.

3. Evidence Supporting the Tribunal's Findings:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence. The Tribunal relied on Exs. 6 and 7, the account books, and oral evidence. The Tribunal found that Ex. 7 contained entries of illegitimate payments not copied into Ex. 6. The Tribunal also disbelieved Sahni's retraction of his earlier statement, which supported the authenticity of Ex. 7. The Tribunal concluded that "Chatrapur Saheb" referred to the respondent, based on several facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence and the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence.

4. Assurance Given to the Respondent Regarding Evidence Use:
The High Court believed the Tribunal had assured the respondent that evidence from the preliminary investigation would not be used against him. The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal only assured the respondent that copies of documents would be provided if the originals were exhibited before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not give an unqualified assurance that the evidence from the preliminary investigation would not be used.

5. Proof of the Rough Account Book (Ex. 7):
The High Court questioned the proof of Ex. 7, as Sahni retracted his earlier statement. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the seizure, Mr. Patnaik's attestation, and the nature of the entries in Exs. 6 and 7. The Tribunal concluded that Ex. 7 was a rough cash book kept by Mr. Patnaik. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's reliance on Ex. 7 was justified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. The Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence, and the High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and assuming that the Tribunal had given an unqualified assurance to the respondent. There was no order as to costs.

---