Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of CISF Constable for Misconduct: CISF vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey (2022)

Date of the Judgment: December 16, 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8671 of 2015
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss an employee be overturned by a High Court based on a re-evaluation of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable accused of misconduct. The court examined the extent to which High Courts can interfere with disciplinary proceedings and the importance of adhering to the principles of judicial review. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice Sanjiv Khanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around Santosh Kumar Pandey, a constable with the CISF, who was posted at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township in Vadodara, Gujarat. On the intervening night of October 26 and 27, 2001, Pandey was accused of misconduct. According to the chargesheet, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on October 27, 2001, Mahesh B. Chaudhry and his fiancée were passing through the area on a motorcycle when Pandey stopped them. Pandey allegedly told Chaudhry that he wanted to spend time with his fiancée and, when Chaudhry refused, demanded something from him. Chaudhry, under duress, handed over his watch to Pandey.

The next day, October 27, 2001, Chaudhry, along with his friend Pradip Raghavan, reported the incident at the P.T. Gate. Senior CISF officers took notice, and Chaudhry filed a written complaint. Pandey was confronted, and the events that transpired were recorded in the inquiry report. Initially, Pandey denied taking the watch but later returned it to Chaudhry. Despite the return of the watch and Chaudhry’s subsequent written request to withdraw his complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Pandey.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Santosh Kumar Pandey was charge-sheeted on October 28, 2001, for misconduct. After denying the allegations, an inquiry was conducted by Deputy Commandant N.K. Bharadwaj, who found the charges proven on January 28, 2002. Despite Pandey’s representation, the disciplinary authority ordered his removal from service on February 23, 2002. The appellate authority rejected his appeal on May 8, 2002, and his revision petition was also rejected on April 8, 2003.

Pandey then challenged these orders before the High Court of Gujarat via Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004. The High Court allowed the writ petition on December 16, 2014, directing Pandey’s reinstatement with 50% back wages. The High Court reasoned that the case rested solely on the testimony of Mahesh B. Chaudhry, whose evidence was inconsistent, and that the watch had been returned, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s judgment primarily revolves around the principles of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. These articles grant High Courts the power to review decisions of lower courts and tribunals to correct errors of law or procedure. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that this power is not to be used for re-evaluating evidence unless the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are legally untenable. The court also cited the Wednesbury principles, which outline the grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with findings of fact based on evaluation of evidence unless they are clearly unreasonable.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were centered on the evaluation of evidence and the scope of judicial review. The CISF argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. They contended that the inquiry was conducted fairly, and the findings were based on substantial evidence. They highlighted that the High Court failed to properly apply the principles of judicial review.

On the other hand, Santosh Kumar Pandey argued that the High Court was correct in overturning the disciplinary authority’s decision because the evidence was inconsistent and the complainant had withdrawn his complaint. He emphasized that the case rested solely on the testimony of Mahesh B. Chaudhry, whose credibility was questionable. He also argued that the return of the watch and the subsequent withdrawal of the complaint should have exonerated him.

The innovativeness of the argument by the CISF lay in emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review and highlighting the High Court’s overreach in re-evaluating the evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list in the provided document. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision based on a re-evaluation of evidence, and whether the High Court exceeded the scope of judicial review.

A sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the return of the watch and the withdrawal of the complaint by Mahesh B. Chaudhry exonerated Santosh Kumar Pandey of the charges.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered the principles of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Central Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507* to emphasize that the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact based on evaluation of evidence unless they are clearly unreasonable.
• The Supreme Court followed Union of India and Others v. P.Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610* to highlight that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence and should only correct errors of law or procedure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of judicial review and to ensure that High Courts do not overstep their bounds by re-evaluating evidence in disciplinary matters. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role is to correct errors of law or procedure, not to substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. The Court also considered the seriousness of the misconduct committed by Santosh Kumar Pandey, stating that his actions were “startling and distressing.”

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles, emphasizing the scope of judicial review and the need to respect the findings of disciplinary authorities. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal aspects played a more significant role in the final decision.

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s reasoning that the evidence of Mahesh B. Chaudhry was inconsistent and that the watch was returned, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint. However, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence and that the return of the watch and withdrawal of the complaint did not nullify the misconduct.

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role is to correct errors of law or procedure, not to substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to properly apply the principles of judicial review, which require deference to the findings of fact by the disciplinary authority unless they are clearly unreasonable.

The Supreme Court also noted that Santosh Kumar Pandey had accepted that he had taken the watch from Mahesh B. Chaudhry and that the misconduct had occurred. The Court further stated that the facts in the present case are startling and distressing, and that such conduct is unacceptable even from police officers, who are not required to do moral policing, ask for physical favor or material goods.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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 principles.”
• “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 a different conclusion.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Scope of Judicial Review: High Courts should not re-evaluate evidence in disciplinary matters unless the findings are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are legally untenable.
• Disciplinary Authority’s Findings: Courts should respect the findings of disciplinary authorities when they are based on a fair inquiry and proper application of mind to the evidence.
• Misconduct: The return of stolen goods or withdrawal of a complaint does not exonerate an individual from charges of misconduct.
• Moral Policing: Even police officers are not allowed to do moral policing or ask for physical favor or material goods.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. The Court also stated that there shall be no order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should not interfere with the findings of disciplinary authorities unless they are based on no evidence, are perverse, or are legally untenable. The judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and reinforces the principle that High Courts should not re-evaluate evidence unless there are clear errors of law or procedure. This judgment reinforces the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in CISF vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Court held that the High Court of Gujarat erred in re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Santosh Kumar Pandey, emphasizing that the return of the watch and the withdrawal of the complaint did not exonerate him from the charges of misconduct. This judgment serves as a reminder that High Courts should not interfere with the findings of disciplinary authorities unless there are clear errors of law or procedure.