High Courts cannot reopen, or question findings of fact reached by the lower courts or Tribunals as a result of the appreciation of evidence in exercise of their writ jurisdiction.

In the matter of Chandu Venkateswarlu vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 4095/2014 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 18.08.2021.

In the present petition, the Delhi High Court has discussed in detail, the power of writ courts whilst going into the decision of Disciplinary Authority and/or Tribunals. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 17.02.2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby the Ld. Tribunal had upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the Petitioner.

The Court placed reliance on various landmark cases of the Hon’ble Apex Court including Syed Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan,  AIR 1964 SC 477 wherein the Apex Court had observed inter alia that “the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court.” This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the lower courts or Tribunals as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The Court further observed that a writ court can correct an error of law which would also include an event where a finding of fact is based on no evidence, however, a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ proceedings on the ground that the relevant and material evidence produced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate as the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

The Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 has crystallized the principles in relation to the scope of power of the writ courts in cases such as the present one and noted that the High Court can only see whether:

  1. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
  2. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
  3. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
  4. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
  5. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
  6. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
  7. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
  8. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
  9. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

The Court further held that, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

  • reappreciate the evidence;
  • interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
  • go into the adequacy of the evidence;
  • go into the reliability of the evidence;
  • interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
  • correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
  • go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

 

The Hon’ble Court placing reliance on the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Wednesbury Principle, held that a writ court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal or Disciplinary Authority especially in respect of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, however, the Court can interfere with the decision of a Tribunal/Authority in the event that there was no evidence, or that the conclusion of the Tribunal/Authority was one which cannot be supported by any evidence and the same could not have been arrived at by any reasonable person/authority in the given set of facts and circumstances.