The Supreme Court has set aside the rulings of both a single judge and a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which had overturned a removal order against a public servant by re-assessing evidence from a departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasised that while courts can ensure that due process is followed, they should not re-evaluate the evidence as an appellate body under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case involved a public servant who was removed from service after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of serious misconduct, including embezzlement. The Rajasthan High Court’s single judge quashed the removal order, citing a lack of evidence and procedural fairness. This decision was upheld by the division bench, which also questioned the findings of the enquiry.
However, the Supreme Court criticised this approach, stating that the High Court improperly re-assessed the evidence. The Court reiterated that in matters of departmental enquiries, the role of the courts under Article 226 is not to act as an appellate authority but to ensure that the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, according to prescribed procedures, and without violating natural justice.
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao (1963), which established that courts should not review the adequacy or reliability of evidence in departmental enquiries. The judgement authored by Justice Amanullah noted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on substantial evidence, including testimonies and documents, and the subsequent removal order was reasoned and supported by the record.
The Court further clarified that while it is not completely impermissible for High Courts to reappraise facts under Articles 226 and 227, such interference is justified only when there is a significant infirmity in the tribunal’s order, which was not evident in this case.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Rajasthan High Court’s orders were unsustainable as they had inappropriately re-evaluated the evidence without justifying such interference. The Court also suggested that disciplinary authorities should provide more detailed engagement with the submissions of the delinquent employee when imposing major punishments, though it found no substantial prejudice in the current case that would warrant overturning the removal order.
