“Judicial Review Cannot Extend to Deciding Disciplinary Proceedings on Merits as Speaking Order Provided for All Charges Except One: Supreme Court”

Must Read

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition...

Follow us

Excerpt:

This case discussed the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority while conducting a departmental inquiry against any public servant and how it is to be conducted. 

Brief Facts of the Case:

This appeal was filed by the Appellant Bank, which is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The Respondent, Ajai Kumar Srivastav, joined as clerk Mumford Ganj Branch Allahabad. While, on duty, he misappropriated funds, for which he was placed under suspension. 

For the same, a criminal case was filed against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent was held guilty and convicted by the Court of Special Judge, CBI Court No.1, Lucknow, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a fine. 

The report of the inquiry was furnished by the inquiry officer, holding that Charge No.1 was not proved, whereas, Charge No.2 to 7 was proved true. But, when the disciplinary authority revisited the inquiry report, it agreed with all the findings except the findings recorded concerning Charge No.1. The disciplinary authority giving its reasons, proved Charge No.1 to be true and served a note of disagreement along with an inquiry report to Respondent calling for written explanations. 

The reply was submitted by the Respondents, but no specific objections were raised. The Respondent was dismissed by service by the Disciplinary Authority based on the inquiry report and reply by the Respondent. The departmental appeal made by the Respondent also affirmed the dismissal. 

This dismissal was challenged in a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which held that the non-speaking Order passed by the appellate authority violates natural justice. This Order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 

Petitioner’s Argument:

The Counsel submitted that the Respondent was given a fair opportunity of hearing in the course of inquiry and the Respondent never questioned either the procedure of inquiry or the competency of authority, who conducted the inquiry or the conclusion of the inquiry, or the supportive evidence. The Respondents even neither contended that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice. Instead, he was holding that the disciplinary authority passed the non-speaking Order without application of mind lacks merit and is not substantiated from materials on record. 

The inquiry officer had given cogent reasons for proving Charge No. 2 to 7. The disciplinary authority, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondent and taking note of his written submissions, upheld its tentative view of affirming the dismissal from service of the Respondents by assigning reasons supported by documents on record. In the given circumstances, the Order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. 

The delinquent Respondent tendered no justification in his written reply to the note of disagreement by the disciplinary authority concerning Charge No.1 not proved by the inquiry officer. Thus, the fair opportunity was afforded to him. 

Taking assistance of State of Orissa and Others vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (1963) and P.D. Agarwal vs. State Bank of India and Others (2006), the Order of dismissal based on findings of Charges No.2 to 7, proved by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the appellate authority, held the Respondent guilty of delinquency in uploading penalty of dismissal and interference by High Court was not justified. 

Respondent’s Argument:

The disciplinary authority failed to examine the record of inquiry independently and rejected the written objections raised by the Respondent and inflicted penalty upon him of dismissal from service by passing a non-speaking Order without application of mind and was rightly interfered by the High Court impugned judgment. 

The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and should have served the note of disagreement in the first place, calling for an explanation. Only thereafter would it be open for him to examine the inquiry independently and take the decision as per the law and the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority in holding Respondent guilty under Charge No.1 was not only procedural error but is a great prejudice, which cannot be cured by post-decisional hearing, which was rightly upheld by the High Court. 

Observation by the Court:

The Court observed that the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the appellate authorities, discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, which had been examined in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan (1994), Government of T.N. and Another vs. A. Rajapandian (1995) and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others (1995)

When the disciplinary inquiry is conducted against the public servant, the Court must examine and determine: (i) whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority, (ii) whether the rules of natural justice are complied with, (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach a finding of fact or conclusion.

If the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, then the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings. In case of disagreement, the disciplinary had to record the reasons of disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to delinquent, may record his findings, if the evidence on record is sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the inquiry officer for further inquiry. 

There exist no strict rules of inquiry for departmental proceedings. The only requirement of the law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at the finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent. 

The Constitutional Courts exercising judicial review would not interfere with the finding of the facts arrived at the departmental inquiry proceedings unless there exists malafides or perversity. 

The Order of dismissal, if based only on the findings of Charges No.1 alone, then it would have been possible to declare the Order illegal. However, the finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer was regarding Charges No. 2 to 7 and was confirmed by the disciplinary authority and was not liable to have interfered and these findings established the guilt of grave delinquency, which was an apparent error by the High Court while interfering with the Order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon the Respondent. It is supported by the judgment in the cases of State of Orissa and Others vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (1963), Binny Ltd. vs. Workmen (1972) and Sawarn Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others (1976). 

The Decision of the Court: 

The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside with no costs and all pending applications stood disposed of.

Click here to view the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -