| Citation | |
| Date of Judgement | 17th May 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Constitution of India |
| Appellant | Mr. V.N. Koura, Adv. Mrs. Paramjeet Benipal, Adv. Mr. Sirish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. M/S. Arputham Aruna and Co, AOR |
| Respondent | Mr. Sayaree Basu Mallik, AOR Mr. N.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Madhur Mahajan, Adv. |
| Bench | Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal |
| Referred | “The Constitutional Courts can only exercise there Power of Judicial Review for the evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself.” |
{Civil Appeal No. 3663 of 2023}
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the aforesaid case, a tender notice was issued by the Appellant Corporation for the job of ‘Repair of Surface Drain and Tank and tank Pad and Tank no. 235, 236 and 237 inside Refinery’ ( Barauni Refinery ), in which three bidders participated. Technical bids of these bidders were opened on 24th August 2001, however the price bids still remained unopened and were kept in the table drawer of K.C. Patel under lock, the keys of which were available with him and Ajit Kumar ( Respondent No. 1 ). Later on 1st October 2001 when price bids were opened the quotation forms submitted by each of the three bidders were signed by K.C. Patel and G.S. Mahto and their entries were made in the register. But on 3rd October 2001 while preparing Comparative table K.C. Patel noticed a change in the price bid of M/S BS Jha as compared to the quoted price in the form of quotation which opened on 1st October 2001. Along with this he also noted that the new form of quotation of M/S B.S. Jha didn’t had his signatures as well as there is some overwriting in the quoted percentage which has made M/S B.S. Jha the lowest bidder ( in the prior stage M/S B.S. Jha was the second lowest bidder and M/S Lakshmi Singh was the lowest bidder ).
In the earlier stage of the discovery of this fault the matter was not reported to the Higher Authorities however efforts were made to trace the original form of quotation. When it was not found, the matter was then brought to the notice of Higher Authorities.
G.S. Mahto at that instance confessed before the authorities that he along with B.K. Mishra, who was another employee in the same Corporation, relaced the form of quotation or price bid so that M/S B.S. Jha becomes the lowest bidder. Inquiry was initiated against them. The envelop containing the price bid of M/S Lakshmi Singh was also sent for scrutinization, the reports of which established that the said document was tampered, opened and resealed. Considering the fact the keys of the drawer in which the envelops containing the bids were kept were available with respondent no. 1 an K.C. Patel, chargesheet was issued to them to explain as to why departmental proceeding shall not be initiated being unsatisfied with their responses to the cause notice departmental proceedings were initiated against them and it was opined that tampering was done with the tenders of two bidders i.e. M/S B.S. Jha and M/S Lakshmi Singh. It was also found that the new form of quotation of M/S Lakshmi Singh contained the original signatures of Respondent No. 1 i.e. Ajit Kumar. As the charges were proved the Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of withholding the Five annual increments with cumulative effect, effective from 1st January 2004 of the Respondent No. 1 whereas on the other hand K.C. Patel was reduced to the lower grade.
The Respondent No. 1 filed various appeals against this action of disciplinary authority which subsequently got dismissed every time by the appellate authority as well as the Learned Single Judge. However, in the intra-court appeal, the order of the Single Judge was reversed and he was set free from all those punishments.
Now, the Appellant appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court as being outside its Power of Judicial Review.
ISSUES:
Before the Apex Court the following issues were raised:
- Whether the Division Bench was correct in reversing the order of the Single Judge?
- Is this act of the Division Bench of the High Court covered under the Article 226 and Article 136 which basically talks about Judicial Review?
ARGUMENTS:
Appellant’s Argument: the Learned Counsel of Appellant argued that the power of judicial review can only be exercised to check whether the inquiry has been done properly following all the rules of law and fair opportunity is given to the other party to represent himself and not to re-appreciate the evidence.
The orders passed by the Division Bench must be set aside as the charges of tampering of price bid were established fully leaving no reasonable doubts. Moreover, the form of quotation of M/S Lakshmi Singh had the signatures of Respondent No. 1 i.e. Ajit Kumar Singh which clearly proves his involvement.
Respondent’s Arguments: the Learned Counsel of Respondent argued that the Division Bench was correct in reversing the injustice caused to the respondent by the Single judge as the respondent could not be held liable for tampering only because he has the keys of the drawer in which the envelope containing the price bids were kept.
JUDGEMENT:
The Apex Court held that the Division Bench of High Court was not correct in reversing the order of punishment inflicted upon an employee in Departmental Proceedings and setting him free wherein in intra-court appeal. It has dealt with the matter as if it is in the inquiry stage or as if the conviction of the malefactor is being re-examined or re-appreciated by another High Court , which is outside the realm of Scope Judicial Review.
Herein, the bench thus, referred to the case Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority ) V. Ajai Kumar Srivastava. In this case, the Apex Court’s views regarding the scope of Judicial Review are:
“25. 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. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
29.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 .”
In the present case, the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Ajit Kumar contended that on that day he was on leave and merely because of the fact that he has the duplicate keys of the drawer in which the envelops of price bids were kept he cannot be held liable for tampering of those documents. However, despite of giving fair opportunity to represent himself at every stage of inquiry he remained silent to the fact that the ‘New Form of Quotation’ of M/S Lakshmi Singh had his original signature which clearly points that he was involved in the tampering of the documents. This fact might have been missed by the Division Bench because of which he has reversed the decision of punishment confirmed by the Single Judge of High Court.
After considering the above mentioned reasons, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge.
REFERENCES:
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16507
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/44259/44259_2018_39_1501_25311_Judgement_05-Jan-2021.pdf
This article is written by Agrima Singh of University of Lucknow, intern at Legal Vidhiya.
