Judicial Review in Departmental Enquiries - Views of the Supreme Court

 

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.