To Justify Interference Under Articles 226 & 227 Of Constitution, Level Of Infirmity In Tribunal’s Order Must Be Greater Than Ordinary: Patna High Court

The petitioner was aggrieved with the Office Order issued by the Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner was demoted to the minimum pay scale of Clerk and further a direction had been issued to recover 16% interest over the amount of registration/renewal fee of the building construction labourers deposited in his accounts.

The Single Bench of Justice Harish Kumar explained, “It is settled proposition of law that in the exercise of the power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot venture into re-appreciation of the evidence or interfere in conclusion with the enquiry officer, if the same are conducted in accordance with law, or go into reliability/adequacy of evidence, or interfere if there is legal evidence on which findings are based, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into proportionality of punishment unless it shocks conscience of Court.”

“As regards the power of the High Court to reappraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court, to justify interference as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S.Raghavendra…”, it added.

Advocate Salahuddin Khan represented the Petitioner while AC Sushil Kumar Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

While the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of the Labour Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in the year 2016, he was transferred to the office of the Labour Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif. During the said period, some amount under the Registration/Renewal Fee for building construction labourers had been received in the office of Labour Superintendent, but it could not be deposited in the Government Treasury and allegedly it was deposited in the account of the petitioner and his wife. The aforesaid amount had later on been deposited in the Government treasury.

This fact led to the initiation of a departmental proceeding and after enquiry, the charges stood proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority inflicted punishment as noted by the impugned order after issuance of a second show cause notice to the petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the explanation set forth by the petitioner, was in limited bound that despite the oral request made by the petitioner to the then Labour Superintendent, he did not show any interest and not allowed spare time to the petitioner to deposit the amount, in question, in the Government Treasury and thus in order to save the Government money, the same was deposited in his account, as also the joint account of the petitioner with his wife. It was noticed that this explanation of the petitioner, without any documentary proof and the witness had not been accepted.

On the scope of judicial review, the Bench said, “The Courts have been reminded time and again through the enumerated decisions that while exercising the power of judicial review, the Court is only confined to decision making process and not the decision.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench said, “The act of the petitioner clearly reflected lack of integrity and even if it is accepted that it was not an embezzlement of Government money, but was a temporary embezzlement and the petitioner has deposited the amount, in question, after ten months and during this interregnum period the fact of deposition of amount, in question, in his account has not been disclosed to any higher authority and thus, prima facie, lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner.”

As per the Bench, the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved and the petitioner had been inflicted the punishment demoting to the minimum pay scale of Clerk and further a direction had been issued to recover 16% interest over the amount for the period, which was kept in his account and the joint account of his wife. The petitioner had also failed to point out any infirmities in the departmental proceeding, which led to the issuance of the punishment order by the disciplinary authority and its affirmance by the Appellate authority.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Sitaram Prasad v. State Of Bihar & Ors. (Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1490 of 2020)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Salahuddin Khan, Chandra Bhushan Das

Respondent: AC Sushil Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download Order