AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 625 ::1999 AIR SCW 274 ::1999 LAB. I. C. 918 ::1999 ADSC 1 217 ::1999 LabLR 169 ::(1999) 1 CurLR 597 ::1999 UJ(SC) 1 508 ::(1999) 81 FacLR 462 ::1999 SCC (L&S) 405 ::1999 (1) SCC 759 ::(1999) 1 LabLJ 962 ::(1999) 1 Scale 57 ::(2000) 1 ServLJ 65 ::(1999) 2 AndhWR 77 ::(1999) 2 All WC 1115 ::(1999) 2 Guj LR 951 ::(1999) 1 Lab LN 1067 ::(1999) 2 Mad LW 691 ::1999 (1) KLT SN 40 (SC) ::(1999) 1 SCT 642 ::(1999) 1 SCJ 265 ::(1999) 1 UPLBEC 551 ::(1999) 1 Supreme 110 ::(1999) 1 JT 61 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1997 Lab IC 3445 (Delhi))

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. S. Anand, V. N. Khare , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.226— Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , Sch.II Item.3— Jurisdiction of High Court - Interference with disciplinary matters and punishment - Court not to normally interfere with either the factual findings regarding guilt or with penalty or punishment imposed by departmental authorities. In departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and in case an appal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.....