S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE respondent was dismissed from service by the appellants on the ground of misconduct. THE order of dismissal was assailed by the respondent by filing appeal and after unsuccessful appeal a writ petition was filed by him which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on November 6, 1998. In this appeal, the appellants have called in question the said order of learned Single Judge, whereby the dismissal of respondent was set aside with all consequential benefits.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the respondent was appointed in the appellant-company as Technical Buyer on November 11, 1971 and promoted as Supervisor in 1975 and Purchase Officer in 1981 (Junior Design Engineer ). On April 6/8, 1992 charge sheet (Annexure-12) was issued against respondent on the ground of misconduct in availing unauthorised leave between March, 1990 to February, 1992. Regarding the alleged absents the respondent replied that due to serious illness of his wife, who had undergone operation at JLN Hospital Ajmer, the respondent had to remain on leave which were duly sanctioned. Another charge sheet was issued on April 18, 1992 for absent on March 6, 1992 at 9. 30 AM to 10. 30 AM. Regarding the alleged absent the respondent replied that he was very much on duty and went to Accounts Department, which fact was clear by the entry of coming-Going Registers of Accounts Department. Initially Mr. Haq (a junior employee of respondent) was appointed as Enquiry Officer, despite the objection of respondent. On June 30, 1992 when the respondent was on sanctioned leave the enquiry was held ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure-R/18) without signing the same. Enquiry of other chargesheet also was held ex- parte and enquiry report (Annexure R/19) was undated. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Having carefully scanned the impugned order of learned Single Judge, we notice that all the contentions raised before us have been analysed and considered in great details. Evidently the first charge sheet was issued to the respondent for his absence occurred on account of illness of his family member. The leave appears to have been sanctioned. As also second charge sheet was issued for such absence, which according to learned Single Judge could not be established even from the documents of the appellants. In the opinion of learned Single Judge the inquiry was against the principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge formulated following points and considered the same:- (i) Whether the respondent had proceeded unauthorised/unsanctioned leave? (ii) If the leave was sanctioned prior to proceeding or even after that, does it still mean to be absence without authority? (iii) What is the procedure for sanctioning the leave? (iv) Is there no evidence on record? (v) Have the impugned orders been passed by the competent authority? (vi) Whether the orders have been passed with malice? Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. H. C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364) held that the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. If the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as it stands, it will be seen whether from such evidence the impugned conclusion follows or not? It was observed as under:-      " In dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2), the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. Although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. (Para 20 ). It was further indicated thus:-      " It is not necessary that in order to attack the order on the ground that it is based on no evidence malafide exercise of power by the Government should be alleged. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. If it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will issue without further proof of malafides. " (Para 22) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that meaning of "availing of unauthorised leave" was not properly considered by the learned Single Judge. Our attention has been drawn to the `incorrect notings' of the learned Single Judge. After vehemently, criticised the order of learned Single Judge, learned counsel pursuaded us to reweigh the material on record. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe the view canvassed by learned counsel. Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon in Special Appeal. Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524 thus:- (Para 7) "the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. " We see no good reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by learned Single Bench in its supervisory jurisdiction.
(3.) FOR these reasons the appeals fails and stands dismissed without any order as to costs. .;