In Brief
A police inspector dismissed for alleged extortion in departmental proceedings challenged the dismissal order. Although he was acquitted in the parallel criminal trial, the High Court and Tribunal set aside the dismissal citing discrepancies in witness testimony. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that judicial review under Article 226/227 does not permit courts to reappreciate evidence or second-guess a disciplinary authority's fact-finding. Courts can interfere only if proceedings violate natural justice, breach statutory rules, or findings are wholly unreasonable or baseless. Discrepancies in evidence do not constitute 'no evidence'. Criminal acquittal does not invalidate prior disciplinary findings made under different standards of proof.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.