IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Harish Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10776 of 2023, CM APPL. 41775 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Judicial Review - Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited Scope of Judicial Scrutiny
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner, which pertained to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal had not discussed the grounds urged by the petitioner and had failed to consider the plea of the petitioner that the finding was perverse. As a result, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and revived the OA with a direction to the Tribunal to hear the counsel for the parties afresh and decide the OA by a reasoned and speaking order.
Issues: The issue was whether the Tribunal had properly considered the grounds urged by the petitioner and whether the finding was perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial scrutiny in cases of departmental inquiries, citing judgments of the Supreme Court, and held that the Tribunal should have considered and given a finding on the plea(s) urged by the petitioner before it.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the order to revive the OA and direct the Tribunal to hear the counsel for the parties afresh and decide the OA by a reasoned and speaking order.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 41775/2023
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10776/2023
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated March 1, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being No. 1427/2020 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner by stating in paragraph 7 onwards as under:
"7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and appreciated the legal position.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that due procedure was adopted when charges were framed. A preliminary investigation was held and regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant. He was afforded opportunity at every stage. It is a well settled law that judicial scrutiny in the matter of disciplinary proceedings culminating in the passing of order imposing a penalty would be limited to decision making process and not to the decision itself. This Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction would not sit as a court of appeal so as to re-appreciate the evidence. This Tribunal would also not interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as also with the decision of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority unless it is shown that the orders are patently arbitrary or utterly perverse. The scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters is extremely limited and observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde, in this regard, is reproduced as under:
"The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, reversed the finding of the Inquiry Officer and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority."
Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. & Ors. vs Mohd. Narsullah Khan, 2006 2 SCC 373.
9. Hence, the OAs lack merit for the reasons recorded hereinabove and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the Tribunal has not discussed the grounds urged by the petitioner in the OA and as such perverse.
3. We find that the Tribunal while discussing the O.A. except holding/concluding that the scope of judicial review in cases of departmental inquiries is limited by relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State Bank of India and Ors. vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde and Govt. of A.P. & Ors. vs Mohd. Narsullah Khan, 2006 2 SCC 373, has neither discussed nor adverted to the plea of the petitioner that the finding is perverse.
4. The Tribunal should have at least considered and gave a finding on the plea(s) urged by the petitioner before it. In the absence of any conclusion in that regard, we have no other alternative but to set aside the order of the Tribunal and revive the OA on the Board of the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to hear the counsel for the parties afresh and decide the OA by a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
5. For the above purpose we list the matter before the Tribunal on September 12, 2023.
The court has the power of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and can set aside orders if they are not in accordance with the law.
Courts emphasize the importance of reasoned and speaking orders, and the need for tribunals to consider and address the grounds raised by the parties.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to process and natural justice; no re-appreciation of evidence or interference with punishment unless shocking to conscience or based on no evidenc....
The proceedings of disciplinary action must comply with established procedural rules; failure to do so undermines justice.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to natural justice compliance, evidence existence, and perversity; no re-appreciation of evidence or penalty proportionality unless shocking consci....
Imposition of punishment after charges were not proved is unjust, and the respondent should be restored to the same position as if no punishment had been imposed.
The main legal point established is the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, emphasizing the authority of the disciplinary authority as the sole judge of facts and the high t....
Judicial review of disciplinary matters is limited, with courts respecting the wide discretion of disciplinary authorities unless procedural fairness is violated or penalties shock the conscience.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.