Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Rajesh Singh, son of Shri Bacha Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Managing Director having its registered office at HPCL – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 7124 of 2025
Decided on : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
In exercising judicial review over departmental proceedings, the High Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-examine factual findings. Interference is restricted to cases of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or when the imposed punishment is so strikingly disproportionate that it shocks the judicial conscience.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review - Departmental inquiry - Dismissal from service - Petitioner challenged termination based on findings of financial irregularities, negligence, and misconduct, alleging procedural unfairness - Court held that scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited and High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact - Interference is permissible only if proceedings violate natural justice, statutory rules, or where findings are perverse or arbitrary - No such irregularity or procedural violation observed - Punishment held not to be strikingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Service Law - Departmental proceedings - Quantum of punishment - Courts may interfere with disciplinary penalties only when punishment is so harsh that it shocks the conscience of the court - Authorities are sole judges of fact in departmental matters where evidence exists to support the findings of guilt. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former employee, was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations of financial irregularities, negligence, and breach of procedures during the period of employment. The inquiry concluded that the charges were proven, leading to the petitioner's dismissal. After exhausting departmental appeals and seeking review, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking to quash the disciplinary, appellate, and review orders and demanding reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and applicable rules. The authorities had provided the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend against the charges. The court confirmed that evidence existed to support the findings of guilt, and determined that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate given the gravity of the proven misconduct.
Issues: The central issues were whether the departmental proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice or statutory rules, and whether the quantum of punishment imposed was so excessive as to warrant interference by the court in its writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that when a departmental inquiry is conducted fairly, in accordance with the rules, and adheres to the principles of natural justice, the court of writ jurisdiction will not sit in appeal over the factual findings reached by the disciplinary authority, nor will it re-appreciate evidence, particularly when the resulting punishment is not strikingly disproportionate.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual context of the administrative dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding fairness of the departmental inquiry process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. limited judicial review of administrative disciplinary punishment by high courts. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final adjudication and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. “For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the order and decision dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure-17) passed by Director, Refineries (On Behalf of Board of Directors) HPCL, whereby and where under the Review Application dated 12.07.2024 preferred by the petitioner under Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules against the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Chairman & the Managing Director (Additional Charge- Director- Mktg.), HPCL (respondent no.2-Appellate authority) has been dismissed.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the order and decision dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure- 15) passed by Chairman & the Managing Director (Additional Charge- Director-Mktg.), HPCL (respondent no.2- Appellate authority), whereby and where under the Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Part II of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules against the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Executive Director Corporate Finance and Disciplinary Authority, HPCL has been dismissed.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the Executive Director Corporate Finance and Disciplinary Authority, HPCL whereby and where under the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the respondent Corporation.
iv. Upon quashing the aforesaid orders dated 11.03.2025, 29.05.2024 and 08.11.2021, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent Corporation to re-instate the petitioner on the post of Asst. Manager Finance, HPCL with all consequential benefits.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the services of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) in Ranchi Retail RO in the year 2011. On 01.12.2016, he was put under suspension on the allegation that he made certain transactions without supporting documents. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 04.10.2018, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On receipt of memorandum of charge, he submitted his reply denying all the charges against him. The inquiry was conducted on different dates and in the meantime the petitioner was arrested by CBI and then was released on bail by order of this Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 06.03.2020. Thereafter, in the departmental enquiry all the four charges had been established against him. The petitioner was then issued a show cause vide letter dated 24.05.2021 along with a copy of the enquiry report date 21.05.2021 by the disciplinary authority. He filed his reply to the show cause on 07.06.2021 denying all the charges leveled against him by the enquiry officer. However, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 08.11.2021. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, he made request to the respondent corporation to reconsider the punishment order and exonerate him of the charges. On 21.12.2021, he preferred departmental appeal but the same was dismissed by order dated 23.08.2022. The petitioner thereafter preferred writ petition being W.P.S. No. 171 of 2023 which was disposed of by remitting the matter for passing fresh order by respondent no.2. The petitioner again appeared before the authority and also submitted his detailed submission
