Ram Karan Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 9186 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2021

Law Laid Down :-

Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally interfere where the enquiry was held by competent authority and where the rules of natural justice were followed or where the finding arrived at by the authority are based on evidence. The Court although cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry, it does not mean that under no circumstances can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to a High Court takes into stride the domestic enquiry as well and the Court can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there is no evidence to support the findings or the finding recorded were perverse or malafide. Relied Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava 2021 SCC Online SC 4, Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and others (2008) 3 SCC 484, State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Heem Singh 2020 SCC Online SC 886.

Mere submission of findings to the Disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings would come to an end only when the findings have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the charges are either held to be not proved or found to be proved and in that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent up to the final stage. Relied AIR 1999 SC 3734 Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharasthra and another,

The tentative reasons for disagreeing with the finding of enquiring authority are required to be communicated to the delinquent officer, so that he may indicate the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Authority are not germane and the finding of 'not guilty' even for a part of charge recorded by Enquiring Authority is not required/liable to the interfered with. Further, the show cause notice must indicate clearly the grounds on which the punishment specified therein is being proposed. It is well settled that the formation of the opinion at this stage should be tentative and not final. The final decision of imposing penalty should be taken only after petitioner is given an opportunity of being heard in respect of these charges.

Ram Karan Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others