Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: March 23, 2022, at 10:15 IST
The two-judge bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant of Supreme Court overturned decision passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench that set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service following a disciplinary inquiry on charges of bribery.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the principles which govern a disciplinary inquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial.
The two-judge bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant was hearing an appeal against the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench that had set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service following a disciplinary inquiry on charges of bribery, by exceeding its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenching upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that an acquittal in a criminal proceeding will not preclude the exercise of the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority; that by interfering with the award of penalty High Court has transgressed the limitation on the power of judicial review; that the acceptance of the explanation given by respondent was erroneous; and that the evidence brought on record by the disciplinary inquiry was enough to sustain the finding of misconduct.
The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the money recovered was repayment of a loan by the complainant’s brother-in-law; that the inquiry officer had no authority to recommend the quantum of punishment; and that the High Court has rightly directed to reinstate the respondent.
The Apex Court disagreed with the reasoning given by the High Court. The Apex Court stated that the High Court could not act as an appellate forum regarding the findings of disciplinary authority. That the High Court may not re-examine the shreds of evidence submitted to the disciplinary authority during the inquiry.
“…the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary inquiry.” the Court said.
The Apex Court further relying on the various precedents and stated that in the exercise of judicial review, the Court must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary inquiry have been observed, and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and
(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Furthermore, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case.
The Apex Court further stated that the Division Bench of the High Court, while deciding the appeal, has exceeded its jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That the High Court had unnecessarily encroached within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer when the inquiry conducted was following all the principles of natural justice.
“The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.” the Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court overturned the decision passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench, stating that we allow the appeals and the acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.