The Supreme Court held that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the inquiry process, not the merits. Once a fair inquiry with due opportunity is conducted, and misconduct is established, interference with the imposed penalty is unwarranted. The Court reinstated the penalty of removal from service.
Facts Of The Case:
The respondent, Indraj, was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Post Master in 1998. During an annual inspection on June 16, 2011, irregularities were discovered involving the misappropriation of public funds. It was found that he had received installment amounts from depositors for Recurring Deposit accounts and a life insurance premium, duly stamped their passbooks, but failed to make the corresponding entries in the official post office accounts, instead using the money for personal purposes. A chargesheet was served on December 17, 2013, and after a departmental inquiry where he was granted due opportunity and defence assistance, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority, considering his admission of guilt and subsequent deposit of the embezzled amounts, ordered his removal from service on December 8, 2014. His statutory appeal and subsequent challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed. However, the High Court, in a writ petition, set aside the penalty, questioning the merits and the voluntariness of his admission. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court exceeded its judicial review jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence on merits.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with a departmental inquiry culminating in the respondent’s removal from service on December 8, 2014. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on July 31, 2015. Subsequently, he filed Original Application No. 397 of 2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his challenge on February 23, 2023. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which allowed the petition and set aside the penalty of removal on September 2, 2024. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, leading to the present civil appeal and the impugned judgment.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: Buying Software for Business Is Not ‘Consumer’ Activity
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in judicial review by reappreciating the evidence and merits of the case. The Court noted that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly, affording the respondent due opportunity and defence assistance, with no procedural infirmity. It held that the respondent’s clear admission of guilt and subsequent deposit of the embezzled funds conclusively proved the misconduct. The Court emphasized that judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the legality of the inquiry process, not the proportionality of the punishment once misconduct is validly established, and mere restitution does not absolve an employee of the disciplinary consequences.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and reinstated the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the respondent. The Court held that the High Court had erroneously ventured into the merits of the case, which falls beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It upheld the findings of the inquiry and the disciplinary authority, concluding that the proven misconduct of misappropriation warranted the severe penalty of removal.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. vs. Indraj Citation: 2025 INSC 1313 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 13183 of 2025 Date of Judgement: November 13, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Rajesh Bindal
Download The Judgement Here