Tribunal Cannot Sit In Appeal Over A Departmental Enquiry: Bombay High Court Restores Compulsory Retirement Of University Engineer

“Court Is Concerned With The Decision-Making Process — Not With Re-Weighing Evidence”, In a significant pronouncement on the limits of interference in disciplinary proceedings, the Bombay High Court, decided on 24 February 2026, set aside the order of the University and College Tribunal which had reinstated a Junior Engineer with full back wages after quashing his compulsory retirement.

Justice Amit Borkar held that the Tribunal “undertook a detailed reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence as if it were hearing a first appeal on facts,” thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. Restoring the order of compulsory retirement, the Court reiterated the settled principle that “sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not within the domain of judicial review.”

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation that disciplinary findings, once supported by some evidence and arrived at through a fair procedure, cannot be lightly disturbed.

Tender Irregularities and Allegation of Illegal Gratification

The Respondent, appointed as Junior Engineer in 1995 under the Standard Code governing non-teaching university employees, faced three serious charges. The first alleged that blank tender forms were issued to contractors lacking valid registration and solvency certificates. The second accused him of improperly opening financial bids of ineligible contractors in breach of the two-envelope system adopted under P.W.D. norms. The third and gravest charge alleged demand and acceptance of Rs.5,000/- in cash and Rs.7,000/- towards travel expenses from a contractor in connection with a university project.

A regular departmental enquiry was conducted. Witnesses were examined. Documents were scrutinised. The Enquiry Officer held all three charges proved and recommended compulsory retirement. After issuing a show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty.

The Tribunal, however, reversed the findings and directed reinstatement with full back wages. That order was challenged before the High Court.

“Judicial Interference Is The Exception — Not The Rule”

The High Court began by clarifying the scope of its review in service jurisprudence.

“A departmental enquiry is not a criminal trial. It is an internal fact finding exercise undertaken by the employer.”

The Court emphasised that it does not sit in appeal over findings recorded in such enquiries. It observed:

“The Court is concerned with the decision-making process, not with the decision itself.”

If the enquiry is conducted in accordance with rules, if the employee is given opportunity to defend, and if the findings are supported by some material, interference is unwarranted. Even if another view is possible, that by itself is not a ground for setting aside the findings.

The Tribunal, according to the Court, crossed the boundary between judicial review and appellate reassessment.

“Natural Justice Requires Notice And Opportunity — Not Perfection”

The Respondent argued that the enquiry was vitiated because the preliminary Fact Finding Committee acted without notice and that transcripts of audio recordings were not supplied.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held:

“A properly conducted departmental enquiry cures the defect, if any, at the preliminary stage.”

The Respondent had been served with a charge sheet, filed a written defence, cross-examined witnesses, and led evidence. The Court found no convincing demonstration of prejudice.

On the issue of transcripts, the Court noted that mere assertion was insufficient. The Respondent did not establish that non-supply prevented effective defence.

“Natural justice requires notice, opportunity and fair consideration. It does not require perfection.”

“Obedience To Superior Orders Is Not An Absolute Defence”

While dealing with the first charge relating to issuance of tender forms to ineligible contractors, the Court emphasised that registration and solvency certificates are not empty formalities.

“They exist to ensure that only competent and financially sound contractors enter the bidding process.”

The Duty Chart placed on record assigned to the Junior Engineer the responsibility of issuing tender forms and opening tender documents in accordance with prescribed procedure. The Building and Works Committee had adopted P.W.D. norms mandating strict compliance.

The defence that the Executive Engineer had issued directions was rejected in clear terms:

“In service law, obedience to superior orders is not an absolute defence, especially when the act is plainly contrary to prescribed rules.”

The documentary endorsements and file notings demonstrated the Respondent’s participation. The finding was based on material and could not be termed perverse.

“Collective Presence Does Not Convert A Wrongful Act Into A Lawful One”

On the second charge concerning opening of financial bids of ineligible contractors, the Court underlined the importance of the two-envelope system.

“This sequence prevents unqualified bidders from entering into financial comparison.”

The Respondent admitted opening both envelopes but claimed he merely assisted in the physical act under instructions.

The Court firmly rejected this explanation:

“Collective presence does not convert a wrongful act into a lawful one.”

Opening financial bids and incorporating rates of ineligible contractors into comparative statements constituted breach of procedure, regardless of who had final approval authority. Misconduct does not depend upon ultimate sanctioning power but upon participation in acts contrary to binding norms.

“Influence Does Not Always Mean Final Authority”

With respect to the third charge of accepting gratification, the Court noted that there was direct oral testimony of the contractor, supported by recorded material. The Enquiry Officer had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witness.

The Court reminded that the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is preponderance of probability.

“The test is preponderance of probability.”

The argument that the final decision to award the contract lay with a higher committee was rejected.

“Influence does not always mean final authority. It can also mean facilitating approvals, clearing files, or creating a favourable environment.”

The finding of guilt was supported by evidence and could not be characterised as based on no evidence.

“Back Wages Do Not Follow Automatically”

The Tribunal had granted full back wages upon reinstatement. The High Court found this direction unsustainable.

“It is settled that back wages do not follow automatically upon reinstatement.”

An employee must plead and establish that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. In the absence of such pleadings and proof, the award of full back wages was legally untenable.

“Compulsory Retirement Does Not Shock The Conscience”

On the question of proportionality, the Court observed that misconduct involving breach of tender procedure and acceptance of gratification strikes at institutional integrity.

“Compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties contemplated under the service rules. It does not carry stigma in the same manner as dismissal or removal.”

Given the gravity of charges proved, the penalty could not be described as shockingly disproportionate.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 14 July 2006 and restored the order of compulsory retirement dated 20 April 2005. The Respondent was held not entitled to back wages.

This judgment serves as a clear reminder that Tribunals cannot convert supervisory jurisdiction into a full-fledged appellate reassessment of evidence. Where disciplinary proceedings are fairly conducted and findings are supported by material, courts will not substitute their own conclusions.

Date of Decision: 24 February 2026