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]