Service Law – Suspension/removal from service – Disciplinary authority accepting enquiry officer’s findings and imposing punishment – Requirement of reasons – On facts, employee placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry for having committed various irregularities – Departmental Promotion Committee did not find the employee fit for promotion as he was under suspension – Charges having been proved, the employee removed from service – Employee challenged the suspension and removal order – Single Judge of the High Court quashed the removal order issuing directions to reconsider the employee’s case for promotion – Said order upheld by the Division Bench – Sustainability: Held: Not sustainable – Single Judge held that the enquiry was based on no evidence, and findings rendered therein were perverse, and as the Removal Order based on the same was not reasoned, quashed the same – Division Bench affirmed the said course of action – Despite noticing the position in law relating to non-interference by the appellate court to re-assess the evidence led in an enquiry or to interfere on the ground that another view was possible on the material on record, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had rightly held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated, without giving any reasons of its own as to how the Single Judge had arrived at such a conclusion – Single Judge and the Division Bench acted as Courts of Appeal and went on to re-appreciate the evidence – Evidently, while reappraisal of facts and evidence is not impermissible by the High Court, the infirmity in the underlying order has to be greater than ordinary – It is not the employee’s case that due to omissions by the Department in substantive and/or procedural compliances, prejudice ensued to him – Employee received an opportunity to submit a written representation as also an opportunity of hearing, thus, no violation of the principles of natural justice found – Removal Order cannot be said to be based on ‘no evidence’ – Removal Order was reasoned as on the aspects where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s report, reasons therefor have been assigned – If the Disciplinary Authority accepts findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and proceeds to impose punishment based on the same, no elaborate reasons are required – Removal Order makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the whole material before it and was satisfied to impose punishment on the employee – Wherever and whenever the Disciplinary Authorities concerned impose a major punishment, it would be appropriate for their orders to better engage with the representations/submissions of the delinquent employees concerned – However, in the instant case, in view of the evidentiary material and the process by which a fair opportunity was given to the employee to present his version, this Court is dissuaded from upholding the impugned judgment on account of minor deficiency/ies in the process – Same have not caused prejudice to the employee to the extent warranting judicial interdiction – Factual position as regards the charges pertaining to non-handing over of full charge at the relevant point of time; appointing persons without permission from the Collector/Registrar; as also, returning the money after one and a half years by the employee, could not be controverted – Moreover, looking to the respondent’s conduct, no arbitrariness or perversity found in the punishment awarded to him – Thus, the impugned judgment quashed and set aside, and removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored. [Paras 21, 22, 28-37]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.