By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Overturns Rajasthan High Court Rulings On Departmental Enquiry: Clarifies Limited Role Of Courts In Reassessing Evidence
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Overturns Rajasthan High Court Rulings On Departmental Enquiry: Clarifies Limited Role Of Courts In Reassessing Evidence
News

Supreme Court Overturns Rajasthan High Court Rulings On Departmental Enquiry: Clarifies Limited Role Of Courts In Reassessing Evidence

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: December 22, 2024 8:29 pm
Amna Kabeer
11 months ago
Share
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court
SHARE

The Supreme Court has set aside the rulings of both a single judge and a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court. They had overturned a removal order against a public servant by re-assessing evidence from a departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court, included a bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. They emphasised that courts can ensure that due process is followed. They should not re-evaluate the evidence as an appellate body under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The case involved a public servant who was removed from service. This was after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of serious misconduct. It includes embezzlement. The Rajasthan High Court’s single judge quashed the removal order, citing a lack of evidence and procedural fairness. This decision was upheld by the division bench, which also questioned the findings of the enquiry.

However, the Supreme Court criticised this approach, stating that the High Court improperly re-assessed the evidence. The Court reiterated that in matters of departmental enquiries, the role of the courts under Article 226 is not to act as an appellate authority but to ensure that the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, according to prescribed procedures, and without violating natural justice.

Reference

The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao (1963), which established that courts should not review the adequacy or reliability of evidence in departmental enquiries. The judgement authored by Justice Amanullah noted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on substantial evidence, including testimonies and documents, and the subsequent removal order was reasoned and supported by the record.

The Court further clarified that while it is not completely impermissible for High Courts to reappraise facts under Articles 226 and 227, such interference is justified only when there is a significant infirmity in the tribunal’s order, which was not evident in this case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Rajasthan High Court’s orders were unsustainable. This is because they had inappropriately re-evaluated the evidence without justifying such interference. The Court also suggested that disciplinary authorities should provide more detailed engagement. This is with the submissions of the delinquent employee when imposing major punishments. Although it found no substantial prejudice in the current case that would warrant overturning the removal order.

You Might Also Like

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To OAS Officer Bijay Ketan Sahoo In Money Laundering Case

No Death Penalty If Reform Potential Exists, Even in Multiple Murder Cases: Supreme Court

Document Related To An Election Must Be Preserved: SC Orders Recount In UP Gram Pradhan Election

Supreme Court Allows Sub-Classification Of Scheduled Castes For Targeted Quotas

Accused Must Have Lived in Shared Household for Domestic Violence Case:Allahabad High Court

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article How To Register A Trademark? Trademark Registration: How To Register A Trademark?
Next Article Supreme Court Directs Health Ministry To Expedite Implementation Of NCAHP Act Supreme Court Directs Health Ministry To Expedite Implementation Of NCAHP Act
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Madras High Court Questions Central Government’s Repeal Of Criminal Laws, Citing Potential Confusion And Delays
News

Madras High Court Questions Central Government’s Repeal Of Criminal Laws, Citing Potential Confusion And Delays

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
12 months ago
Lawyer Urges Supreme Court to Mandate Elections with Ballot Papers Instead of EVMs
Abetment Of Suicide Requires Clear Evidence Of Instigation, Mere Conflicts Cannot Constitute Abetment: Punjab & Haryana HC
PMLA Court In Kolkata Dismisses ED’s Complaint Against Nalini Chidambaram In Saradha Chit Fund Scam
Section 299 BNS Criminalizes Deliberate Acts Intended To Insult Religious Beliefs: Allahabad HC On Priyanka Bharti Over Manusmriti Page-Tearing Incident
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Section 149 – Code of Civil Procedure – Power To Make Up Deficiency Of Court-Fees.

Section 148A – Code of Civil Procedure – Right To Lodge A Caveat.

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?