Judicial review has been a subject of Courts since the landmark judgement of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. But this time, the Supreme Court had to decide whether evidence could be re-appreciated in case of departmental enquiry proceedings in the appellate stage.
In this article, we will understand the recent judgement of the Supreme Court on judicial review and the re-appreciation of evidence in departmental proceedings.
Case Background
-
In 2001, the Indian Oil Corporation issued a tender for a repair job. The price bids were kept in a drawer which was tampered with. The tampered document had the signature of Respondent No. 1.
-
The Central Forensic Institute submitted an inquiry report which proved that tampering was involved, based on which a charge sheet was issued to Respondent No. 1 asking why a departmental inquiry should not be initiated against him.
-
The report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority, as a consequence of which the Authority imposed a penalty which included withholding of increments with cumulative effect.
-
An appeal, filed by the Respondent, was dismissed first by the Appellate Authority and then by a Single Judge of the High Court of Patna. The Order of the Single Judge was reversed in an intra-court appeal by a Division Bench, and the punishment was set aside.
-
Against this Order of the High Court, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The main contentions of the Appellant were that in case of disciplinary proceedings, judicial review of the High Court is limited to ascertaining whether the due process of law and fair opportunity was given to the parties involved.
/content-assets/a4ef9543d0a34068add6f3f997de714b.png)
Issue before the Court
Can re-appreciation of evidence be done at the stage of Judicial Review?
Decision by Supreme Court
The Bench noted that Respondent No. 1 has not challenged that he was given an opportunity to be heard at every stage of the inquiry. The Single Judge made the same conclusion.
It was observed that the judgement was rendered by the High Court's Division Bench as if the case had just begun, with the investigation still ongoing and an inquiry report still being written. This is outside the purview of judicial review. The Bench set aside the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the Order passed by the Single Judge.
Case referred by the Court
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava, 2021, SC:
The Supreme Court placed reliance on this case while interpreting the scope of judicial review. In this case, the Supreme Court had observed that "The constitutional court, while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution, would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity…."
Conclusion
Through this judgement, the Supreme Court re-emphasised the scope of judicial review. It made clear that judicial review should not involve re-appreciation of evidence or treating a case as if it is still in the investigatory stage, especially in departmental proceedings. The judgement also served as a reminder that going beyond the scope of judicial review by a Constitutional Court and treating a case as if it were still in the investigative stage cannot be accepted.
Case name: The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr.