Skip to main content

Departmental Enquiry | BSMPG College Roorkee v. Samrat Sharma, C.A. 6189 of 2019 08-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | L. Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Secretary Managing Committee BSMPG College Roorkee v. Samrat Sharma, C.A. 6189 of 2019 08-08-2019

Service Law - University - Departmental Enquiry - Judicial Review - It is the decision making process and not the decision itself which can be the subject matter of judicial review. Interference by the courts can only be in cases where there is no evidence. Sufficiency of evidence for proof of the charges against delinquent officers is completely within the domain of the administrative authority. Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. Interference with the penalty imposed on delinquent officers is permissible only when it shocks the conscience of the court.



The High Court committed an error in reappreciating evidence in coming to the conclusion that the charges against Respondent No.1 were not established. It is well settled law that it is the decision making process and not the decision itself which can be the subject matter of judicial review. Interference by the courts can only be in cases where there is no evidence. Sufficiency of evidence for proof of the charges against delinquent officers is completely within the domain of the administrative authority. Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. We are afraid that the High Court has transgressed the permissible limits of judicial review in holding that the evidence on record did not warrant an order of termination. Interference with the penalty imposed on delinquent officers is permissible only when it shocks the conscience of the court. We are not dealing with any of the submissions made on behalf of the parties relating to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against Respondent No.1 as we have held that the procedure prescribed under the First Statutes was violated while conducting the departmental enquiry against Respondent No.1. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the High Court by which the order of termination of the services of Respondent No.1 was set aside. We also uphold the direction relating to the entitlement of Respondent No.1 to claim salary for the period of his suspension. However, we are of the opinion that the Appellant- College should be permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry into the charges that have been communicated to Respondent No.1, if they so wish. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. [Paras 12 & 13]

Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more