The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that in the exercise of the power vested upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. However, if it is found that the evidence considered by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is contrary to the statements made by the witnesses and if it appears to be perverse to the Court, then, in the exercise of its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court can re-appreciate and pass an order in accordance with the law.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was the officer in charge of the police station and while he was discharging his duty, he detained a vehicle and found contraband goods inside the cabin of the vehicle. Then, the case was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner as to why a departmental proceeding should not be initiated against him for not informing his higher officer regarding the detention of the vehicle at the appropriate time. Then, he replied to the said show cause notice in which the Petitioner stated that he had informed the detention of the vehicle to the higher authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (for short, SDPO) of the concerned jurisdiction. However, being dissatisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority initiated a proceeding against him and the charges were framed against him. The disciplinary authority held the Petitioner guilty of committing misconduct and imposed a penalty of “withholding of one-time scale increment of pay without cumulative effect”. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that it was alleged by the disciplinary authority that he did not inform his higher authority about the detention of the vehicle and seizure has not been proved. However, it is apparent on the record that the SDPO was itself present at the time of the seizure of the contraband. The same was also admitted by the SDPO in his cross-examination.
The Court furthermore observed that it is a well-established law that the writ court is not permitted to reappraise the evidence while exercising the authority granted to it by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the Court may use its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to reexamine the evidence and issue an order in compliance with the law if it turns out that the evidence examined by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority contradicts the testimony of the witnesses and appears to be perverse to the Court.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the disciplinary authority has committed serious errors of facts. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order of penalty.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Surasen Tripura V. The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No.548 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA