Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts II / The Revival of Ray LV

We will first discuss the scope of interference by a High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 reiterated the principles of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723.

An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a Writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557.

In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 this Court held, the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence.

Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, [Civil Appeal No. 3820 of 2020].