Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review – Bid tampering matter, wherein disciplinary proceedings initiated against two employees – Order of imposition of major penalty of withholding five annual increments against the respondent no. 1 and punishment of reduction to a lower grade against the other employee – Order of punishment against the respondent no.1 upheld by the appellate authority as also the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the punishment imposed set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: During the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage – This was even found by the Single Judge – However, the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review – Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence – When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document – Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice the same, thus, the order passed by the Division Bench set aside and that of the Single Judge restored – Judicial review. Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612; Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023) SCC Online SC 27 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.