Judicial review of dispensed departmental enquiries is limited, and relief may be moulded into a monetary settlement where reinstatement is inappropriate.

Judicial review of an order dispensing with departmental enquiry is confined to the decision-making process and will turn on whether the disciplinary authority recorded reasons and was satisfied that holding an enquiry was not reasonably practicable. The text also notes that interference is justified only for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or manifest arbitrariness. Where the alleged misconduct is not disbelieved, the enquiry is dispensed with, and the employment relationship has broken down, the court may decline reinstatement and instead mould relief by directing a monetary settlement in full and final satisfaction of service claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dispensing with departmental enquiry was liable to judicial review and could be set aside on the facts of the case. (ii) What relief should follow where the misconduct was not disbelieved, the enquiry was dispensed with, and the employment relationship had broken down.

Issue (i): Whether the order dispensing with departmental enquiry was liable to judicial review and could be set aside on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The power to dispense with an enquiry under the applicable service rules could be exercised only when the disciplinary authority recorded reasons and was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Judicial review in such matters is limited to the decision-making process, and interference is warranted only where the decision is vitiated by illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or manifest arbitrariness. The Court held that the High Court did not examine the issue of impracticability in the correct perspective and proceeded on assumptions of mala fides without specific pleadings or proof. At the same time, the reasons recorded for dispensing with enquiry were also found not to be proper.

Conclusion: The order dispensing with enquiry could not be sustained on the approach adopted by the High Court, though the disciplinary authority's reasons also did not fully justify the course adopted.

Issue (ii): What relief should follow where the misconduct was not disbelieved, the enquiry was dispensed with, and the employment relationship had broken down.

Analysis: The alleged acts were not disbelieved and were treated as prima facie misconduct. In that setting, the employer was entitled to rely on loss of confidence, especially in view of the seriousness of the incident and the long lapse of time. The Court balanced the competing interests by declining to restore the matter for a fresh enquiry and instead moulded the relief by awarding a monetary amount in full and final settlement of claims.

Conclusion: The employee was not granted full reinstatement relief and the matter was finally settled by a monetary direction in lieu of further service consequences.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the High Court's approach was corrected, and the dispute was concluded by substituting a monetary settlement for the service consequences flowing from the dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary matters, judicial review is confined to the legality and reasonableness of the decision to dispense with enquiry, and where misconduct is prima facie established but reinstatement is inappropriate, the Court may mould relief by substituting a monetary settlement in full and final resolution.

---