Courts Ought To Refrain From Interfering With Findings Of Facts In Departmental Inquiries Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence.

If principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said.

In this case, disciplinary proceedings against a Constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) resulted in an order of his dismissal from service. The appellate authority and the revisional authority upheld the order. Later, allowing his writ petition, the Calcutta High Court ordered his reinstatement. It directed CISF to to issue a fresh order of punishment that should commensurate to his negligence and dereliction of duty, other than a punishment of dismissal, removal from service or compulsory retirement.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noticed that the High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer. "This was clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority.", the court said.

Referring to some earlier judgments, the bench, while allowing the appeal, noted the following regarding the approach that shoud be adopted by Court while examining legality of orders passed in Disciplinary Proceedings:

It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere.

"To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor."

In Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, it was observed that the High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

Case details

Union of India vs Subrata Nath | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 | CA 7939-7940 OF 2022 | 23 Nov 2022 | CJI DY Chandrachud Justice Hima Kohli

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR; For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere - Being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran ((2015) 2 SCC 610). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor. (Para 15-22)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment