The Hon'ble Courts Refraining From Interfering in Departmental Inquiry

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the Hon’ble Courts refrain from interfering in the affairs of finding facts that are recorded in a departmental inquiry except when there are special circumstances where the findings are perverse or incompatible with the evidence on record, based without evidence.

It all comes under the Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, ‘Disciplinary Proceedings’.

“…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….”

When the Disciplinary Authority find such adequacy in the departmental inquiry, they have the authority to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee, with the gravity of the incident or misconduct.

The Hon’ble High Court and/or the Hon’ble Tribunal can only let the evidence speak for itself, until and unless that shakes the conscience of the Hon’ble High Court/Tribunal or is so flawed for other reasons. Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran ((2015) 2 SCC 610)

The conscience once shaken, can attribute the Hon’ble High Court and/or the Tribunal to re-consider the penalty that has been 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 the Case Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran it was noted that the enquiry is held by the competent authority, enquiry is held by procedure and is on that behalf, there is violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the proceedings, the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching at a conclusion by some contradictions that are irrelevant to the evidence and the merits of the case, the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, the conclusion is wholly arbitraty and no reasonable person could ever have arrived at the same conclusion, the authority had erroneously failed in admitting the evidence on record, the authority had admitted inadmissible evidence that had influenced the finding, lastly finding of the fact is based on no evidence.

#lawyer #ladylawyer #india #highcourt #cji #instagram #supremecourtofindia #legal