TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead with Section 13(2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. A charge sheet against the respondent was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Mysore for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said criminal trial resulted in the acquittal of the respondent. 3. In addition to the criminal trial, the respondent was also proceeded against for the misconduct in departmental proceedings. The respondent was served with a charge sheet. The respondent faced departmental proceedings on the following two charges: "1. You, the Accused Police Officer, Sri. N. Gangaraj, while working as Police Inspector in City Crime Record Bureau of the office of the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City from 31/07/97 to 31/10/98, one Miss. Chandrika resident of Nandanavana, Ulsoor, Bangalore City, has lodged a complaint dated 08/08/98 with Sri. Kempaiah, Commissioner of Police, Mysore City, against one Mr. Mahendra of Indiranagar, Bangalore, stating that he promised to marry her and taken her in car No. KA-05-9795 along with his friends and raped her. She has requested therein to take action against Mr. Mahendra and his friends. The Commissioner of Police....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the witnesses, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to rely upon such evidence to come to the conclusion that the respondent has demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and he settled for Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal further did not agree with the findings of the IO or the Disciplinary Authority that the charges have been proved as there is no charge on record of receipt of Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the water in which the hands of the respondent were washed, turned pink due to the ink of the pen, as deposed by PW-3 Balaraju in his statement. The High Court found that similar evidence has not been accepted in criminal trial and that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which make it unreliable. The High Court recorded the following four discrepancies in the departmental proceedings: "(i) In the complaint Smt. Nirmala says that on 26.08.1998 for the first time she met the applicant in his house at Mysore but in the deposition, she states that she went to the house of the applicant on 27.08.1998 for the first time along with panch witness Saroja and the money was offered; (ii) If the evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence...." 9. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 749], again, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under: "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Patil & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 416], this Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under: "16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him." 13. In another judgement reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610], this Co....