A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was justified in quashing the removal order of an employee, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, and directing a reconsideration for promotion. The employee, accused of significant misconduct, challenged the removal and argued a lack of evidence and procedural fairness. The Single Judge quashed the order, deeming it perverse and unsupported by evidence. The Division Bench upheld this decision without providing substantial reasoning. The Supreme Court reversed these findings, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and reinstating the Disciplinary Authority’s order.

Keywords

1. Suspension
2. Removal from Service
3. Disciplinary Authority
4. Principles of Natural Justice
5. Judicial Review

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 8546-8549 of 2024
iii) Judgement Date: 08 August 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
vi) Author: Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 154
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958
  ix) Judgments Overruled: None
  x) Case is Related to: Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose from the disciplinary removal of Bhupendra Singh, a former Assistant Registrar under the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Accusations of misconduct, financial irregularities, and procedural lapses led to his suspension and eventual removal from service. He contested the removal order, asserting it was baseless and a violation of principles of natural justice. The case highlights the judiciary’s approach to disciplinary proceedings, natural justice, and its limited role in reassessing evidence in administrative matters.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appointment and Conduct: Bhupendra Singh, appointed in 1960, faced allegations of unauthorized administrative actions, including irregular appointments, embezzlement, and financial misconduct.

2. Charges: The employee faced 16 charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Notably, these included failing to hand over charge upon transfer, appointing individuals without requisite permissions, and misappropriating funds.

3. Enquiry Proceedings: After due process, charges were found to be partially or fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service.

4. Challenge in High Court: Bhupendra Singh challenged the removal order. The High Court quashed the order, citing procedural deficiencies and deemed the evidence insufficient.

5. Supreme Court Appeal: The State of Rajasthan appealed the High Court’s judgment, asserting procedural compliance and the validity of the disciplinary findings.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the removal order was procedurally valid and supported by evidence?
ii) Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction under Article 226 by reassessing factual findings?
iii) Was there a violation of natural justice principles?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Evidence-Based Findings: The appellants contended that the disciplinary proceedings were based on documentary and witness evidence, which the respondent did not dispute.

2. Scope of Judicial Review: It was argued that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by reassessing evidence, contrary to established precedents on the scope of Article 226.

3. Natural Justice Compliance: The appellants maintained that the respondent was provided adequate opportunities to represent his case, ensuring compliance with natural justice.

4. Pervasive Misconduct: The appellants highlighted Bhupendra Singh’s conduct, including unauthorized actions and financial irregularities, warranting the penalty of removal.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Baseless Charges: The respondent argued that the charges were unsupported by credible evidence, rendering the removal order arbitrary.

2. Procedural Violations: It was alleged that the Disciplinary Authority failed to properly consider the respondent’s representation.

3. High Court’s Jurisdiction: The respondent supported the High Court’s judgment, asserting its authority to intervene in cases of procedural lapses and perverse findings.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Scope of judicial review.
ii) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958 – Governing disciplinary proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining procedural fairness, not reevaluating evidence.
2. Findings of the Disciplinary Authority were based on admissible evidence, and there was no violation of natural justice.

b. Obiter Dicta

• While better engagement with representations in removal orders is desirable, minor deficiencies without prejudice do not warrant judicial interference.

c. Guidelines

1. Courts must not act as appellate bodies in disciplinary cases.
2. Removal orders must address representations, though not necessarily in exhaustive detail.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao [1964] 3 SCR 25
2. State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar (2011) 10 SCC 249
3. Union of India v. K G Soni (2006) 6 SCC 794
4. State Bank of India v. S K Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India, Article 226
• Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958