Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 16 October 2026
- Bench
- Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 226, 311; Letters Patent of the Madras High Court — Clause 15; Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 — Rules 17, 19
Appeal allowed. The Division Bench judgment of 29 August 2019 in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018 is set aside and the writ court's decision in W.P. No. 23936 of 2013 is restored; no order as to costs (paras 30-31).
Key holdings
- A finding in a domestic inquiry resting on conjecture, with no supporting evidence, is perverse and open to correction by certiorari (paras 17, 21).
- Exhaustion of a statutory appeal is a self-imposed rule of convenience, not a bar, and a writ court may entertain a challenge to removal from service (para 22).
- A Letters Patent appeal lies on fact and law, but the Bench should be slow to interfere with the writ court's exercise of discretion (paras 27-28).
- The Letters Patent Bench may interfere only where findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record (para 29).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel (1976) 1 SCC 518
Relied on by the writ court: a finding with no evidence to support it is perverse.
- Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration (1984) 4 SCC 635
A finding not supported by any evidence is perverse; there is a difference between appraisal of evidence and total lack of evidence.
- Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. (2005) 5 SCC 337
A distinction must be drawn between substantive violation and technical infringement of the rules of natural justice.
View all precedents (23)
- State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667
A distinction must be drawn between substantive violation and technical infringement of the rules of natural justice.
- Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 315
A distinction must be drawn between substantive violation and technical infringement of the rules of natural justice.
- P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776
A distinction must be drawn between substantive violation and technical infringement of the rules of natural justice.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 237
Courts may in their discretion refuse a writ even where the facts are admitted and natural justice was not followed.
- Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR (1955) SC 233
Constitution Bench authority on certiorari under Article 226: it corrects errors of jurisdiction and errors of law apparent on the record, including findings based on no evidence, but is supervisory, not appellate.
- The Custodian of Evacuee v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor AIR (1961) SC 1089
Constitution Bench authority on certiorari under Article 226: it corrects errors of jurisdiction and errors of law apparent on the record, including findings based on no evidence, but is supervisory, not appellate.
- T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa AIR (1954) SC 440
Certiorari lies in appropriate cases and is generally granted where a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR (1964) SC 477
Certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction; findings of fact cannot be reopened, but a finding based on no evidence is an error of law correctable by the writ.
- State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481
Writ powers are exercised for the sake of justice and may be withheld where interference would cause greater harm to society.
- Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 677
A writ can issue only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or a flagrant violation of law.
- Mohan Pandey v. Ushal Rani Rajgaria (1992) 4 SCC 61
The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to replace an ordinary remedy by way of a suit.
- Mohammad Hanif v. State of Assam (1969) 2 SCC 782
The writ remedy is not appropriate where the decision may amount to a decree declaring title and restoring possession.
- Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company v. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 SCC 595
Relied on by the writ court: the party making allegations must establish the misconduct.
- P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.
The Letters Patent is a subordinate legislation (the judgment cites it as "(2004) SCC 672").
- Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao (1974) 2 SCC 492
The limits of Sections 100 and 101 CPC do not bind a Letters Patent Bench hearing an appeal from a Single Judge in a first appeal; it may examine both fact and law.
- B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh (2006) 13 SCC 449
A Letters Patent appeal lies on questions of law and of fact, and the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact.
- Gaudiya Mission v. Shobha Bose (2008) 17 SCC 714
A Letters Patent appeal lies on questions of law and of fact, and the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact.
- Sachida Nand Lal v. State of Bihar (2008) 17 SCC 596
A Letters Patent appeal lies on questions of law and of fact, and the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact.
- Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316
A Letters Patent appeal lies on questions of law and of fact, and the Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact.
- Alapati Kasi Viswanatham v. A. Sivarama Krishnayya
Five-Judge Bench (C.A. No. 232 of 1961, decided on 11.01.1963): a Letters Patent appeal from a first appeal is not a second appeal, and the Bench may review findings of fact, though it should be slow to disturb concurrent findings.