Shivani Gadhavi
Published On: February 01, 2022 at 18:14 IST
The Supreme Court of India on January 31, 2022, gave a Judgment in regards with whether a High Court can interfere with findings of a Disciplinary or a Departmental Authority by scrutinizing the Evidence on record.
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices K M Joseph and Ravindra Bhatt was hearing a Petition filed against an Order of the Calcutta High Court. The issue is pertaining to an employee who was promoted to Junior Management Officer Grade Scale-1. Later on, Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him, for which he was Allegedly found of being an Accomplice in five major Charges.
The Enquiry Officer had found him Guilty of the Charges, in accordance with which the Disciplinary Authority had terminated his employment. The Employee had challenged his termination in an Appellate Court, but his Plea was rejected. The Employee had then approached the Calcutta High Court challenging his termination under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
A Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court had dismissed his Plea, yet another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had allowed his Plea and had set aside the previous Orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority.
The Bank which had terminated the employment of the Petitioner (in the original case), had put forth an argument stating that the Calcutta High Court Division Bench had altered the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on grounds of the Evidence collected by the Authority being insufficient.
The Bank had contended that under a settled proposition, Courts, under Judicial Review, cannot re-appreciate Evidence that has already been appreciated by a Domestic Tribunal.
The Supreme Court in this regard mentioned that in the Case of Union of India v. H C Goel, in which it had laid down certain parameters under which a High Court can interfere with the findings of a Disciplinary Authority.
The parameters in this regard were that a High Court can interfere when findings of the Disciplinary Authority are not based on Evidence, are based on irrelevant material or when the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances.
In regards with the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court Bench dismissed the Appeal of the Bank and upheld the Decision of the Division Bench.