Explore the intricacies of judicial review in disciplinary matters as highlighted through a recent court case. The court’s analysis delves into the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and principles of natural justice, emphasizing that the power of judicial review differs from acting as an appellate authority. This case sheds light on the nuanced legal considerations involved in disciplinary proceedings, serving as a significant precedent for future cases.
Facts
- Leave granted for the case
- The appeal has been preferred
- Appellate authority upheld guilt on charges 1, 2, and 3 but modified punishment
- Disciplinary authority confirmed guilt on charges 1, 2, and 3 and imposed penalties
- Respondent challenged penalty in writ petition
- Single Judge and Division Bench misunderstood the appellate authority’s decision, focusing only on charge 1
- Appellate authority upheld guilt on all charges and modified punishment for leniency
- Division Bench of Allahabad High Court set aside disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed on respondent
- Respondent was found guilty of gross irregularities while working as an officiating Manager in Muzaffarnagar
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Arguments
- The High Court found charge no. 1 to be vague and lacking in particulars, depriving the respondent of a fair chance to reply.
- The disciplinary proceedings and penalty were set aside by the High Court due to these reasons.
- The appellants argue that the appellate authority did not exonerate the respondent from charge nos. 2 and 3, which were proven during the inquiry.
- The Division Bench’s finding that charge no. 1 was vague and prejudiced the respondent is disputed by the appellants.
- The respondent’s counsel agrees on the charges proved during the inquiry but argues that the punishment inflicted was not supported by the evidence.
- The High Court’s premise of exoneration on charges 2 & 3 was found to be factually incorrect and not supported by the record.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Analysis
- The constitutional courts, in exercising judicial review, do not act as appellate authorities.
- The power of judicial review is not the same as adjudicating the case on merits as an appellate authority.
- The respondent did not contest that the departmental inquiry followed the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.
- Request was made to decide the matter on merits due to the delay in the disciplinary inquiry.
- The inquiry officer found charge nos. 1, 2, and 3 proved, which was upheld by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
- The punishment was modified by the appellate authority, taking a lenient view.
- Judicial review in disciplinary matters is well established.
- High Court’s finding on charge no. 1 being vague and depriving the respondent of submitting a reply was deemed incorrect upon review of the inquiry record.
- The inquiry officer’s findings were supported by evidence and confirmed by the authorities.
- Option to remit the matter back to the High Court or decide on merits.
- Charge no. 1 is clear and specific, leaving no ambiguity for the delinquent to understand
- Respondent never claimed inability to respond due to vagueness of charge no. 1
- High Court’s premises regarding charge no. 1 are deemed unsustainable and should be set aside
Decision
- The Division Bench judgment dated 19 February, 2021 has been set aside.
- The appeal has succeeded and is allowed.
- Any pending application(s) have been disposed of.
Case Title: GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION – I)/APPELLATE AUTHORITY Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ (2022 INSC 204)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001458-001458 / 2022
