Service Law. The Constitutional Court would not interfere with the findings of the departmental enquiry except in a case of malafides or perversity. Law on the point reiterated. Supreme Court.

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE
AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS vs AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA. f SLP(C) No(s). 32067­32068 of 2018. Decided on 5 January 2021.

Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/44259/44259_2018_39_1501_25311_Judgement_05-Jan-2021.pdf

Relevant paragraphs

23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary
inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities
discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article
32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by
limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and
it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate
authority.

25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision­ making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against
the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules
of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing
the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached
by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of
the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no
evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up,
the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the
examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of
authority as a matter of fact.

27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the
disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the
disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings
recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary
authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record
his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient
for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for
further enquiry.

28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to
departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only
requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent
must be established by such evidence acting upon which a
reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may
arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the
delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises
cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental
enquiry proceedings.

29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or
perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or
where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there
is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Bangalore.