Judicial Review Under Article 226 Is Not an Appeal Over Disciplinary Findings: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition of the petitioner, who challenged his dismissal as Secretary of the Abul Khurana Multipurpose Cooperative Agriculture Service Society, alleged bias and procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceedings. Justice Namit Kumar, however, rejected these contentions, holding that the inquiry and subsequent decisions adhered to established principles of natural justice and procedural propriety.

Sukhjinder Pal Singh had joined the society in 1997 as a Salesman and was later promoted to Secretary. Following allegations of financial irregularities, he was placed under suspension on March 25, 2022, and served with a charge sheet on June 27, 2022. An inquiry committee constituted by the society substantiated the charges against him, leading to his dismissal on March 20, 2023. Subsequent appeals and revisions filed by the petitioner were dismissed by higher cooperative authorities, prompting him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the decisions against him were non-speaking and influenced by bias from certain managing committee members. He claimed that his submissions during the inquiry were disregarded and that he was held responsible for actions beyond his control. Conversely, the respondent’s counsel defended the disciplinary proceedings as fair, arguing that the petitioner’s misconduct had been thoroughly examined and proven.

Justice Namit Kumar observed that the inquiry and subsequent disciplinary actions complied with the prescribed procedure. The Court noted that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to present his case and that the findings of the disciplinary authorities were based on evidence. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), the judgment reiterated that judicial review in such cases is confined to assessing procedural propriety and adherence to natural justice.

The Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot function as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters. Justice Kumar clarified that the role of the High Court is limited to ensuring that the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, according to the prescribed rules, and without violating natural justice. The Court further held that it cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless the conclusions are perverse or unsupported by any evidence.

The Court highlighted that while the petitioner alleged bias, he failed to substantiate these claims with concrete evidence. Moreover, the disciplinary and appellate authorities had issued reasoned orders addressing his contentions. The Court found no procedural lapses in the inquiry process and concluded that the petitioner’s dismissal was justified.

In its decision, the High Court underscored that judicial review is intended to evaluate the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Justice Kumar remarked that departmental inquiries are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in courts, but they must adhere to principles of fairness and objectivity.

The petition was dismissed as lacking merit. Justice Kumar’s judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that courts must respect the findings of departmental authorities if they are supported by evidence and conducted in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: November 11, 2024