January 05, 2017

HC Can Interfere With Disciplinary Inquiry: SC

disciplinary inquiry

The Supreme Court stated that the high court can interfere with disciplinary inquiry or orders passed by the competent authority if a probe is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

The court further added that in a case where the disciplinary authority arrives at a finding that is unsupported by evidence or records a finding that no reasonable person could have arrived at, then the writ court is justified in examining the matter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur and comprising Justice A M Khanwilkar said that “It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by evidence whatsoever or a finding that no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified, if not duty bound, to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases.”

The bench then said that “Non-application of mind by the inquiry officer or authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment.”

It further added that “the writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary inquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the inquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case.”

The Supreme Court made the observation while quashing the order of the departmental authority against a former Allahabad Bank employee, Krishan Narayan Tewari, whose services were terminated in 2005 following an inquiry against him saying, “the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority, and appellate authority have faltered in discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

It also noted that Tewari’s claim that he was not given a fair chance to lead evidence in his defence was not rebutted effectively by the bank. The bank had challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had held Tewari not guilty, saying the departmental as well as appellate authorities did not apply mind while deciding the matter.

It had contended that the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and holding the respondent not guilty.

In an appeal, the bank said that as long as there was some evidence on which the disciplinary authority could rest its findings, sufficiency or insufficiency of such evidence could not be gone into by a writ court.

It further added that even if there was any infirmity in the orders passed by the disciplinary or appellate authorities, the proper course for the high court was to remand the matter back to either of the authorities for doing the needful afresh.

“The respondent’s case that the inquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly, the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion.”

The bench said, “To add insult to injury, the appellate authority, instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority.” It further added that the high court was right in interfering with the orders passed by the authorities.

However, the bench refused to grant full salary arrears to Tewari, the former officer-in-charge of bank’s Sultanpur branch in Uttar Pradesh, and directed the bank to release 50% salary and retirement benefits to him.

The apex court also noted that it could not order fresh inquiry or send the matter back to the disciplinary authority as Tewari, currently 65 years old, suffered many ailments and ordering any probe would be “very harsh” on him.

latest News

  • Delhi HC Says "Arguments Heard. Judgment Reserved" On Lawyer Rohit Tandon's Bail Plea

    On April 10, a single bench of Justice SP Garg of the Delhi High Court heard the bail application of Delhi-based Lawyer Rohit Tandon in connection wit...

    Read More

    The Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice issued “The Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.” The Act enacted by Pa...

    Read More
  • RBI to transfer Rs 50,000 crore surplus to govt

    On August 8, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said that it will transfer Rs 50,000 crore as surplus to the Central Government for the year ended June 3...

    Read More