Supreme Court upholds order directing removal of CISF Constable accused of 'asking for physical favours'
Supreme Court also observed that the High Court's decision, which was challenged before it, had not considered that judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principle.
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority against a CISF Constable who was accused of asking for physical favours.
Court noted that the Constable, one Santosh Kumar Pandey was not a police officer, and even police officers were not required to do moral policing and ask for physical favour or material goods.
CISF had approached the Top Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision directing Pandey's reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of his removal.
Pandey, who was working as a constable with the CISF, at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township, Vadodara, Gujarat had on August 27, 2001, at about 1:00 a.m., stopped one Mahesh B. Chaudhry and his fiancée who were passing through the area on motorcycle and had questioned them. Pandey taking advantage had told Mahesh B. Chaudhry that he would like to spend some time with his fiancée. When Chaudhry had protested and did not agree, Pandey had asked Chaudhry to give him the watch he was wearing.
The next day, Chaudhary had approached Pandey's seniors and filed a complaint.
The High Court had relied on Chaudhary's fiancée's statement who submitted that no such incident had occurred and Chaudhary's statement that the watch was returned to him and, therefore, he did not want to take any action against him and he withdrew the complaint.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari had noted that the reasoning given by the High Court was faulty on both facts and law.
Supreme Court noted that the High Court had failed to properly apply the law of judicial review.
"The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion. Thus, error of law, is apparent in the reasoning vide paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment....", the top court said while upholding the order of removal.
Case Title: CISF AND OTHERS vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY