Power of Judicial Review of the Constitutional Courts is Evaluation of the Decision-Making Process and not the Merits of the Decision Itself : Supreme Court

Power of Judicial Review of the Constitutional Courts is Evaluation of the Decision-Making Process and not the Merits of the Decision Itself : Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of disciplinary proceedings conducted in a departmental inquiry reiterated that the constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The present case is related with tempering in price bids of tender raised by the Appellant Corporation. When the corporation issued the tender notice three bidders namely M/s. B.S. Jha, M/s. Laxmi singh and one more has been participated. It was decided that firstly the technical bids will be opened on 24.08.2001 and the price bids will be open later on. Whereas, the price bids with the remark of “not opened today” was kept under the table drawer of K.C. Patel. The keys of the drawer were only available to Mr. Patel and the Respondent.

Further the price bids were opened on 1.10.2001 and the relevant point which should be noted here that every form of quotation submitted by each bidder was signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto. Later on while preparing the comparative table Mr. Patel has noticed some changes in the price bid of M/s. B.S. Jha and found his (Mr. Patel’s) signature is missing in the changed price bid. Overwriting is been figured out in the price bid of M/s. Jha due to which M/s. B.S. Jha, who was the second lowest bidder (L-2) shift to the lowest bidder (L-1).

The whole matter was brought to the notice of the higher authorities where G.S. Mahto confessed that the changes has been made by him and one more person at the instance of M/s. B.S. Jha so that her firm could be at  L-1. At the same time envelope containing the price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh was also sent to the Central Forensic Institute, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Kolkata, through letter on 8.4.2002. Where it was found in the report that said envelop had been tampered with by opening and then resealing. Show cause notice has been issued to the Respondent as considering the fact that the envelopes containing bid were kept in a drawer of which a duplicate key was available with him.

Respondent was found guilty in the departmental proceeding. Then he has preferred an appeal against the order of punishment passed by Disciplinary Authority which was dismissed by the appellate authority . Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Further, in an intra-court appeal, the order of the Single Judge was reversed and the punishment was set aside. Upon that Corporation has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court to challenge the order passed in an intra-court appeal.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court in the matter of judicial review has scope only to determine whether the due process has been followed and the fair opportunity has been given to the concerned employee. He submitted that threadbare evidences could not be examined in an intra-court appeal when the single bench has already upheld the order of appellate court. Further learned counsel contended that price bid was tempered with as per the findings of forensic department.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that mere presence of duplicate keys of drawer with the respondent wherein bid documents were kept doesn’t translate into tempering with the documents. Further while supporting the decision given by Division Bench he prayed for the dismissal of appeal.

HON’BLE COURT OBSERVATIONS

The Hon’ble Court after the perusal of records, evidences and statements finds that there isn’t any dispute regarding the fair opportunity of hearing been provided to respondent at every stage of inquiry. Relying on the judgment of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava the Hon’ble Court observed

“It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.”

“The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained .”

Further the Bench of Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal while allowing the appeal held

“…….there was no answer to the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report, namely, that the changed form of quotation of M/s. Laxmi Singh contained original signature of respondent no.1. The fact that this “Form of quotation” was changed is not in dispute. When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

Law points Involved:

Article 136 – Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

Article 226- Power of High Court to issue certain writs.

Case Title :- The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors Versus Ajit Kumar Singh &   Anr.

Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023

Order Date:- 17 May, 2023