inquiry officer - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Restores Dismissal, Limits Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Dismissal, Limits Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases

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...

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that misconduct, proven on the preponderance of probabilities and bringing disrepute to a disciplined force, warrants a commensurate penalty. It found no grounds for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Constable Amar Singh, was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the Mallaram Camp. On August 27, 1995, he was granted a two-hour out-pass to visit a hospital. Instead of doing so, he went to a residential colony located approximately 12 kilometres from the camp to enquire about quarters allotted to another constable. His presence and actions there agitated the local ci...

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...