In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that in the case of P.A. Karkhanis v. UCO Bank, (2009) 5 Mah LJ 444, a Division bench of the Bombay high court has held that the appellate authority is required to consider the evidence on record and to find out the guilt. The appellate authority is duty bound to assess the evidence for coming to the conclusion as to whether the guilt is established against the delinquent or not. It was held that in the said case, upon perusal of the order of the appellate authority, an impression was created as if the appellate authority’s jurisdiction was restricted only to see whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority can certainly reappreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusions. It was held that the appellate authority had not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective so as to find out the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It was further held that if it was found that the material facts produced by the delinquent had not been taken into account at all, the High Court can certainly interfere with the findings which were arrived absolutely on the basis of surmises or conjectures.
Thus, it is clear from the above ruling that the appellate authority is required to consider the evidence on record and to find out the guilt, and that the appellate authority is duty bound to assess the evidence for coming to the conclusion as to whether the guilt is established against the delinquent or not. The appellate authority can certainly reappreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusions.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
