JUDICIAL REVIEW AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the exercise of power by superior courts to test the legality of any governmental/ State action. It is the exertion of the Court’s inherent power to determine whether an action is lawful or not and to grant appropriate relief. As Prof. Wade points out judicial review is a fundamental mechanism for keeping public authorities within due bounds and for upholding the rule of law.

It is universally recognised that the range of judicial review exercised by the superior Courts in India is perhaps the widest and most extensive known to the world of law. Judicial review is permissible on limited grounds such as jurisdictional error, violation of fundamental rights- Arts 14, 19, 21 arbitrariness, capriciousness, malafides. Judicial review is to test the legality and keep public authorities within the limits of their power lawful or unlawful? No examination of merits.

While in judicial review generally it is an objective assessment, in the narrow area of testing the reasonableness of restrictions on fundamental rights the Court enters the arena of merits and there is a subjective element.  The exercise of the power of judicial review is a delicate task requiring balancing of different principles and values calling for vision and statesmanship, something which requires a measure of activism and a measure of self-restraint.

Judicial Review in India

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India explicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32, 131 through 136,143, 226 and 246.

Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers, the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches and ensure constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to invalidate any law, ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage that has the force of law and is incompatible with the terms of the Constitution of India. Since KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU Versus STATE OF KERALA - 1973 (4) TMI 114 - Supreme Court, the courts can invalidate any constitutional amendments if they infringe on the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.

Frequently, judicial review is used to protect and enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. To a lesser extent, judicial review is used in matters concerning legislative competence concerning the centre-state relations.

Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings

Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 / 227 is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the case, ensuring compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, and that findings are not based on ‘no evidence’ or are not perverse. Courts do not act as appellate authorities to re-appreciate evidence.

Key aspects of judicial review in disciplinary matters include:

• Scope of Interference: Courts interfere only if the inquiry is procedurally flawed, conducted by an incompetent authority, or violates natural justice (e.g., no opportunity to defend).
• ‘No Evidence’ Rule: Judicial review is possible if the findings are not supported by any evidence, rendering the conclusion perverse.
• Proportionality of Punishment: While courts cannot substitute their judgment, they may interfere if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, shocking the conscience of the Court.
• Standard of Proof: Unlike criminal cases, disciplinary proceedings follow the 'preponderance of probability' standard.
• No Re-appreciation of Evidence: The court will not re-evaluate evidence to reach a different conclusion, as the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.

Orders in disciplinary proceedings are usually quashed if they violate statutory rules, fail to provide a fair hearing, or are based on malafides.

Issue

The issue to be discussed in this article is the scope of judicial review against the order passed in disciplinary proceedings with reference to decided case law.

Case law

In K. Rajaiah Versus The High Court for the State Of Telangana - 2025 (2) TMI 1525 - Supreme Court, The appellant was recruited as an attender in the Court. Since he was not doing well, he informed his supervisor over telephone about his absence. The Principal District Judge directed to take disciplinary action against the appellant. On enquiry the appellant submitted the entire case and also produced doctor certificate to confirm the inability to attend the office. A notice was issued to the doctor who issued the medical certificate. The said doctor appeared and informed that he did not give such medical certificate. The said certificate might have been fabricated by using his letter pad.

Based on this fact, the appellant was issued with the Statement of imputation. The appellant was asked for his explanation. The appellant did not submit any explanation. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered against the appellant. During the enquiry the appellant sought for the appointment of an Advocate to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings. The same was denied but he might take the assistance of any government servant. The appellant himself wanted to defend his case.

The doctor was examined. The doctor deposed that the appellant approached him and he gave some tablets to him. He did not know the date on which the appellant approached him. Even though the rubber stamp in the medical certificate is of his own he denied the issue of certificate to the appellant. He further submitted that he has no indoor treatment in his nursing home. After issuance of show cause for imposition of major penalty, by order dated 13.11.2018, the appellant was dismissed from service. An appeal filed to the administrative side of the High Court resulted in a dismissal on 08.01.2021.  The appellant filed a writ petition against the dismissal order before the High Court. The same was dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant contended that the charges in this case have not been established since the illness of the appellant and the treatment by the doctor is not in dispute and it has not been established that the Medical Certificate was fabricated. The punishment is grossly disproportionate.

The respondent contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer could not be substituted and that court in a judicial review ought not to function as a court of appeal. All that the court in judicial review is concerned is whether the inquiry was held by a competent authority, in accordance with the procedure prescribed and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and whether any extraneous considerations or evidence has been taken into account. The punishment for forgery has been specifically provided and punishment ought to be dismissal.

The Supreme Court considered the submissions of the appellant and the respondent. The Supreme Court observed that when the doctor admits having treated the appellant, the least that was expected from the doctor is to provide the date on which he treated him to contradict the case of the appellant. Further the Inquiry Officer ought to have verified the disputed and the undisputed writings and if any doubt persisted the matter ought to have been referred to the handwriting expert because the certificate is not a printed form but in writing. The Supreme Court found that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the medical certificate was not genuine, is perverse and based on no credible evidence.

The Supreme Court held that since the Inquiry Officer did not refer the matter to the handwriting expert the charge of forgery has not been proved. The Supreme Court held that the parameters for judicial review against orders passed in disciplinary proceedings are limited. However, it is well settled that where the findings are based on no evidence a court of law is perfectly justified in interfering with the orders in disciplinary proceedings.

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12.02.2024 and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service dated 13.11.2018 and the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal dated 08.01.2021 will all stand set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant’s fault.