The Supreme Court has clarified that High Court Division Bench’s appellate powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, holding that a writ court’s decision cannot be overturned merely because the appellate bench takes a different view. In a service dispute involving Periyar University’s former Deputy Registrar, the Court set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench’s judgment and restored the order that had interfered with his removal from service.
Background
R. Saravanan, who was appointed as an Assistant Registrar in 2000 and later served as Deputy Registrar, was removed from service by Periyar University in July 2013 following a disciplinary inquiry into allegations concerning his assets and official conduct.
The inquiry report found certain charges proved, including allegations relating to the affiliation granted to Ganga College of Education, a house property registered in his mother’s name, and the purchase of a Santro car. Saravanan challenged the removal before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Single Judge found that the inquiry findings lacked supporting evidence and interfered with the punishment. However, the Division Bench reversed that decision in an appeal filed by the University, prompting Saravanan to approach the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar examined the evidence underlying the disciplinary findings and the limits of appellate interference with a writ court’s decision.
The Court observed that the inquiry officer must assess evidence impartially rather than presume misconduct. It found that the conclusions concerning the charges rested on assumptions and inferences unsupported by sufficient material.
The judgment stated:
“The Inquiry Officer while preparing his report should rely only on the evidence adduced during the domestic inquiry and he should not base his findings on mere conjectures and surmises.”
The Court also clarified that a Letters Patent Bench can review questions of law and fact, but that power is not unlimited. Interference with a writ court’s discretionary decision requires cogent grounds, particularly where the original ruling is supported by relevant considerations.
It explained:
“The Letters Patent Bench should ordinarily be slow and refrain from interfering with the discretion exercised by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court Division Bench had reassessed the inquiry material without identifying a sufficient reason to disturb the Single Judge’s well-reasoned decision. The distinction between reviewing evidence and correcting findings unsupported by evidence was central to its analysis.
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench’s judgment dated August 29, 2019, in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018 and restored the Single Judge’s decision in W.P. No. 23936 of 2013.
The civil appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
