Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: April 22, 2022 at 08:40 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Bombay at Goa Bench, in which the High Court directed the Appellant herein to reinstate the respondent herein without any back wages and other benefits by substituting the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the High Court cannot interfere in conscious decision taken by a Disciplinary Authority under Article 226.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna was hearing an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Bombay at Goa Bench, in which the High Court directed the Appellant herein to reinstate the respondent herein without any back wages and other benefits by substituting the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Apex Court stated that the short question which is posed for consideration by this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court that the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC.
That it is immaterial whether the certificate submitted by the respondent was material or not. The issue here is not the intention of the respondent but the submission of a fake or forged document. The Apex Court found the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority to be just and fair.
“Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.“ the Court said.
The Apex Court stated that in cases where the Disciplinary Authority takes a conscious decision, the same could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
That the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…when a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service, the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.“ the Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the Court of Judicature Judicature for Bombay at Goa Bench by stating that the High Court’s decision of interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of dismissing the respondent herein from service and ordering reinstatement without back wages and other benefits is hereby quashed and set aside.
