[Service cases] Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to interfere in disciplinary decisions limited: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited when it comes to interference with punishments awarded in disciplinary proceedings by competent service authorities [Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India and Others]..The High Court can only examine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer and whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said. .Referring to various case laws on the subject, the Court said:"Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with.".The Court placed reliance on the decision in BC Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (1995), among other decisions, to state that the High Court's power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. .Recounting the judgment in Om Kumar and Others v. Union of India (2001), the Court added:"The question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and ... concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with.".The appellant before the Court had been removed from his post as a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on grounds of indiscipline. The Court was informed that he had, at the time of submitting his character certificate, suppressed the fact that certain criminal cases had been filed against him. Earlier, a single-Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had struck down the removal of the appellant from his post. A division bench, however, set aside the single-judge verdict, prompting the appellant to move the Supreme Court. .The Supreme Court placed reliance on decisions in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and Others (2022) wherein the top Court had laid down guiding principles for service authorities to follow in disciplinary proceedings and the scope of the Court's inquiries in such cases. The Satish Chandra Yadav case had spelt out that the Court's role was limited to looking into such matters as:- The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.- Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?- Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?.In the present case, the bench found that the single-judge of the High Court had erred in interfering in the matter since the disciplinary order passed by the CISF authorities was a well-reasoned one. "Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities," the top court said. .It, therefore, upheld the decision of the High Court's division bench and dismissed the appeal..Senior Advocate R Bala Subramanian appeared for the respondent-authorities while advocate Asifa Rashid Mir appeared for the appellant..[Read Judgment]