Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Appellants
A1: The State of Rajasthan
A2: Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel
A3: Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur
Versus
Bhupendra Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 8546-8549 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12773-12776 of 2021
Decided On : 08-08-2024
[DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY] - [SERVICE DISMISSAL] - [Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, particularly Rule 16 concerning departmental inquiries, and Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the scope of judicial review. The court emphasized that the High Court should not reassess evidence from a departmental inquiry unless findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. The court found that the inquiry was conducted properly, and the findings were supported by evidence, leading to the conclusion that the respondent's removal was justified.]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Inspector (Executive) appointed in 1960, faced multiple charges of misconduct, including financial irregularities and insubordination. After a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service in 1985. The High Court quashed this removal, leading to appeals from the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court had erred in quashing the removal order, as the inquiry was conducted fairly, and the findings were based on sufficient evidence. The court restored the removal order, emphasizing the proper conduct of the inquiry and the adequacy of the evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in quashing the removal order based on the findings of the departmental inquiry and whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the High Court does not act as an appellate court in departmental inquiries and should not interfere unless the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. The inquiry was found to be valid, and the removal order was justified based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The court quashed the High Court's judgment, restored the removal order dated 28.09.1993, and stated that the respondent's payments made during the interim would not be recovered.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The court emphasized that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be reassessed by the High Court unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse, affirming the authority of the disciplinary body in determining misconduct (!) .
The High Court's intervention was found to be inappropriate because the enquiry was conducted properly, and the findings were supported by evidence; thus, the court should not interfere with the disciplinary process unless there is a clear lack of evidence or perversity (!) .
The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring that the enquiry was held by a competent authority, according to the prescribed procedure, and that natural justice was not violated. The courts do not act as appellate bodies re-evaluating evidence (!) .
Natural justice principles are flexible and depend on the context. A violation such as no notice or no hearing is a fundamental defect, but procedural irregularities that do not cause prejudice may not warrant interference. The adequacy of a hearing is judged by whether it was fair and full (!) (!) .
The disciplinary authority's findings, if based on some evidence and accepted, do not require detailed reasoning when imposing punishment; the order should reflect that the authority considered the evidence and the enquiry report (!) .
The reappraisal of facts and evidence by the High Court is permissible only when there is a greater than ordinary infirmity in the order, such as a total lack of evidence or perversity. Mere disagreement with the findings does not justify interference (!) (!) .
The order of removal, when based on evidence that was not challenged or disputed by the respondent, cannot be deemed to be based on ‘no evidence’. The disciplinary process was found to be fair, and the order was supported by the record (!) .
The court noted that the respondent's representations and opportunity for hearing were considered, and the order of punishment was not arbitrary or perversely disproportionate. Minor procedural deficiencies that did not cause prejudice do not warrant setting aside the order (!) (!) .
The original removal order was upheld, and the court found that the impugned judgments, which had quashed the removal on grounds of natural justice violations, were unsustainable. The court restored the disciplinary order, with a concession not to recover payments already made to the respondent due to his age and retirement status (!) .
Overall, the court reaffirmed that the authority of the disciplinary body should be respected unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or absence of evidence, and that courts should exercise restraint in re-evaluating factual findings in disciplinary proceedings (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals are directed against the common Final Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) by which D.B. Special Appeal Writs No. 1695/2008, 14/2009, 15/2009 and 65/2009 were dismissed.
BRIEF FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
4. The sole respondent was appointed as Inspector (Executive) in the year 1960 and later appointed as Assistant Registrar on 05.04.1973 on selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “RPSC”). On 29.04.1976, the respondent granted permission for construction of godown of Sadulshahar Jamidara Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. despite the Registrar having issued a direction to consult the Public Works Department to obtain a technical opinion. The respondent, further, appointed two persons on 04.01.1977, despite order to get the permission from the Registrar. On 06.05.1977, the respondent was reverted to the post of Inspector and also directed to handover charge to Mr. Amar Chand Dhaka but he did not comply with the same and allegedly obstructed the other person from duty.
5. On 18.05.1977, the respondent issued an order nominating himself as Administrator of the Bharat Bus Transport Cooperative Society Limited though he was reverted from that post and charge was taken over from him by another person. During such period, the respondent sold 9 shops without adopting the procedure of auction at very low prices compared to the market value of the said shops. He is further said to have made irregular payments on 30.05.1977. On 21.06.1977, he withdrew an amount of Rs. 9,025/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Twenty-Five) from the account of the Bharat Bus Transport Cooperative Society Limited as expenses incurred for purchase of stamps though the same were recovered from the shop-buyers and thus, illegally kept by him. On 01.08.1977, the Collector of the district asked the respondent to hand over charge of Administrator of Hanumangarh Society but he did not hand over the charge and cash balance etc. till 19.08.1977.
6. On 04.10.1979, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry for having committed various irregularities. As per the seniority list published on 05.10.1979, the respondent was at S. No. 39 as on 01.07.1978. On 07.02.1980, Appeal No. 361/79 was filed by the respondent seeking promotion which was dismissed on the ground that there were adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Records (hereinafter referred to as “ACRs”) for the years 1975-1976, 1976-1977 and 1977-1978. However, it was observed that if the said adverse entries were expunged, the respondent would have a case for reconsideration.
7. On 03.10.1980, charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Rules”) was issued against the respondent levelling 16 charges including sub-charges. The preliminary statement of the respondent was recorded on 23.05.1983 in connection with the said enquiry. Examination of witnesses took place on various dates. In the meantime, on 28.11.1983, in Appeal No. 237/82, adverse entries in the ACR were expunged. On 05.03.1984 and 04.06.1984, detailed statement of the respondent was also recorded. Finally, the enquiry report was submitted on 19.04.1984. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “DPC”) in its meeting held on 21.11.1984 did not find the respondent fit for promotion as he was under suspension on that day. The respondent had moved the High Court in Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 590/1983, wherein suspension order dated 04.10.1979 against the respondent was pro spectively stayed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed Appeal No. 358/85 for
The court established that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be reassessed by the High Court unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse, affirming the authority of the disciplinary ....
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
The main legal point established is the limited scope of interference in departmental inquiries by the court, which can only be done in specific circumstances such as violation of principles of natur....
The court emphasized the importance of integrity in the judiciary and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
