- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 17/9/1992 passed by the orissa High court in writ petition (OJC No. 4057 of 1990 filed by Rangadhar Nayak, respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner").
(2.) The petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-corporation"). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in respect of five charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting an inquiry into the charges, found that Charges Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were established. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer the disciplinary authority accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of Charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and by order dated 16/4/1987 the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of removal from service was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 14/10/1987.
(3.) The petitioner filed a writ petition (OJC No. 3512 of 1987 in the high court challenging the said order of removal. In the said writ petitionthe respondent raised various contentions to challenge the said order. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High court by its judgment dated 11/1/1990. The High court held that the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited and cannot be equated to that of a court of appeal over decisions of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against an employee and that it is not the function of the High court to review evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. It was observed that if there was some legal evidence on which the conclusion of the departmental authorities was based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence was not a matter that could be permitted to be canvassed before the High court in a proceeding under Article 226 and that the High court could interfere only if there was total absence of evidence. The High court, however, found that the forum of review was provided by rule 35 and the reviewing authority had jurisdiction to consider the adequacy, existence or otherwise of material in justification of the penalty imposed and there is no fetter in its power to make in-depth analysis and evaluation of evidence. The High court, therefore, disposed of the writ petition with the direction that it was open to the petitioner to make a representation relating to the desirability, quantum and nature of penalty to be imposed, if any, and that on receipt of such representation the authority shall deal with and dispose of the same in accordance with law.;