Limited judicial review of dispensing with enquiry; serious misconduct and loss of confidence can justify compensation instead of reinstatement.

Where disciplinary rules allow an enquiry to be dispensed with only on recorded satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable, judicial review is confined to legality, rationality, procedural fairness, and mala fides; a court cannot simply substitute its own view, and a bare allegation of victimization is insufficient without particulars. On the relief question, established serious misconduct, loss of confidence, and the passage of time can justify ing reinstatement and full consequential benefits, with monetary compensation instead of further service relief where that better balances the competing interests.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary authority's decision to dispense with a domestic enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one was open to judicial review and, if so, to what extent. (ii) Whether, in view of the established misconduct, loss of confidence, and passage of time, the employee was entitled to reinstatement with full consequential relief.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary authority's decision to dispense with a domestic enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one was open to judicial review and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The disciplinary rules permitted dispensing with enquiry only where the authority recorded reasons and was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Such satisfaction belonged primarily to the disciplinary authority, and a court would not substitute its own view merely because another view was possible. Judicial review was confined to examining the decision-making process, including whether relevant factors were considered, irrelevant factors excluded, and whether the decision suffered from illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or mala fides. A bald allegation of victimization without specific particulars or proof was insufficient to invalidate the order. At the same time, the recorded reasons had to disclose a real basis for impracticability and could not rest on mere ipse dixit.

Conclusion: The order dispensing with enquiry was subject to limited judicial review, but the High Court erred in treating the matter as one of established mala fides and in not examining the question of impracticability in the correct perspective.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the established misconduct, loss of confidence, and passage of time, the employee was entitled to reinstatement with full consequential relief.

Analysis: The misconduct alleged was not disbelieved and was prima facie serious enough to affect discipline, reputation, and trust in the employment relationship. In such circumstances, loss of confidence was a relevant consideration, and the employer was not bound to continue the employee in service. The lapse of time was also a significant factor. Relief in the nature of back wages could not be granted by a rigid formula and had to be adjusted to the facts of the case. Balancing the competing interests, the Court considered that monetary compensation in addition to the interim payment already made would adequately settle the matter.

Conclusion: Reinstatement with full consequential benefits was not warranted; the employee was to receive the quantified monetary amount in full and final settlement instead.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal dispute was resolved by upholding the employer's action in substance, while substituting monetary settlement for further service relief, and the matter stood finally concluded on those terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the disciplinary rules permit dispensing with an enquiry upon recorded satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold one, judicial review is confined to testing the legality, rationality, and procedural fairness of that satisfaction and does not permit substitution of the court's own view; proven misconduct and resulting loss of confidence may justify denial of reinstatement and justify compensation in lieu of service relief.

---