INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Union
of India & Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, Civil Appeal Nos.
6723 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the general
principles that govern the scope of judicial review in departmental enquiries
in service jurisprudence.
BACKDROP
In the instant case, the power of the Courts to
interfere in departmental enquiries was looked into. Whether a Court is
competent to impose punishment or decide the nature of penalty that is to be
imposed on an employee was also considered by the Court. In order to understand
this in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the
Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that “the well
ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the
appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an
employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the
disciplinary authority.”
Secondly, the Court further explained that “even
in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to
be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of
imposition of penalty.”
Thirdly, it was also clarified by the Court that “the
scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a
limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even
in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the
disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to
substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it
is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the
litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment
in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning
cogent reasons.”
Fourthly, the Court cited the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, 1995 (6) SCC 749, wherein it
was observed that “the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the
appellate authority, being factfinding authorities have exclusive power to
consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested
with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.” The High Court cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on the penalty imposed by the disciplinary
authority and even if the High Court does not agree with the findings of the
disciplinary authority, then it could always direct the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the imposition of penalty or expedite the proceedings. However, in
exceptional cases and for cogent reasons, the Court may itself impose
appropriate punishment.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
And lastly, the Court also cited the case of Lucknow
Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another
vs. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, wherein following principles
relating to departmental enquiries were culled out: -
a. When charge of misconduct is proved, the
quantum of punishment is to be decided by the departmental authorities.
b. The Courts cannot assume the function of
departmental or disciplinary authorities to decide the quantum of punishment or
the nature of punishment that is to be awarded.
c. “Limited judicial review is available to
interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in
cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.”
d. “Even in such a case when the punishment
is set aside, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to
the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass
appropriate order of penalty.”
e. Where a co-delinquent with identical charges
and circumstances is awarded lesser punishment, the doctrine of equality may
come into picture in such cases and parity may be claimed.
Therefore, I hope that the general principles that
govern the scope of judicial review in departmental enquiries is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment