High Court Jurisdiction Limits on Service Termination Challenges Under Article 226

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing a writ petition challenging the termination of services solely on the ground of improper notice service. Emphasizing limited interference under Article 226, the Supreme Court stated that such intervention is warranted only in cases of miscarriage of justice or legal error, not to re-evaluate evidence. The respondent, aware of the inquiry against him, chose not to participate, waiving his right to claim violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the respondent's application was upheld, and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the termination of services u/s natural justice principles and the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Article 226.

Termination of Services:
The respondent, who was working as an Inspector in Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, was charge-sheeted and an ex parte inquiry found him guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority terminated his services after considering the inquiry report. The respondent contended that the termination order violated the principle of natural justice as he was not heard. The Tribunal dismissed his application, stating that he intentionally avoided participating in the inquiry proceedings despite being aware of them. The High Court, however, allowed the writ petition solely on the ground of improper service of notice to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that interference u/s Article 226 is only warranted in cases of miscarriage of justice or error of law, not to re-evaluate evidence.

Principle of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the application of natural justice principles varies based on the facts of each case. In this instance, the respondent, a law graduate, was found to have knowledge of the departmental inquiry against him but chose not to participate, as evidenced by his own representations. By not engaging in the proceedings, he waived his right to claim non-compliance with natural justice principles. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially for a law graduate. Therefore, the High Court erred in reassessing the Tribunal's findings, and the order was set aside. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the respondent's application was upheld, and the writ petition in the High Court was dismissed.

---