Chandigarh, April 16
In a major decision, the Supreme Court has set aside a judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which it had refused to interfere in the findings of an inquiry officer and various appellate authorities.
The present trend of the courts is not to interfere in findings of the inquiry officer as well as refuse to question the material facts on which the inquiry report is based.
The ruling also means that the question mark over the status of a civil suit challenging the legality of disciplinary proceedings has been finally laid to rest.
This order was passed on the plea of Mr Narinder Mohan Arya, challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through which it had dismissed the petition filed by Mr Arya on the ground that it could not go into the findings of the inquiry officer.
The petitioner, an officer with the united India Insurance Company, had been removed from service on the charge that he had ante-dated an insurance cover note. His appeal within the department was also turned down as were further appeals filed by him.
Even after a civil court ruled that it was the insurance company and not Mr Arya which had ante-dated the cover note, no relief was granted to him. Thereafter, he moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A single Judge of the High Court allowed his petition with the Division Bench upholding the single-Bench order. On appeal, the SC remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, Mr Arya’s plea was dismissed by the court.
After hearing his appeals, filed through advocate Puneet Bali, the SC Bench of Mr Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr Justice Dalveer Bhandari observed that the findings of the inquiry officer must be supported by material of record and the judgement of the civil court should have been held relevant in subsequent departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
The Bench also held that despite limited jurisdiction, the civil court was entitled to interfering in a case where the report of the inquiry officer was not based on evidence. It also ruled that in a departmental inquiry, fairness in the procedure was part of natural justice.
“Exercise of discretionary power involves two elements i.e. objective and subjective and existence of exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element,” the Bench held.
The Bench also ruled that the writ court was entitled to interfering with the findings of any tribunal or authority.
In another important conclusion, the SC Bench also held that departmental inquiries were quasi-criminal proceedings and under certain circumstances, when a decision of the civil court was binding upon the criminal courts, the same had to be binding upon the departmental proceedings as well.
