NEW DELHI: Observing that dismissal from service is no less than a death penalty for a government employee, the Supreme Court has directed the reinstatement of a deputy registrar of Periyar University in Tamil Nadu who was removed over allegations of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar set aside a division bench order of the Madras High Court and restored the decision of a single judge granting relief to R Saravanan, holding that the disciplinary proceedings against him were unsupported by legally admissible evidence.
In its October 16 order, the apex court observed that the findings of a one-man inquiry commission constituted by the university were based on conjectures and hearsay rather than documentary evidence.
๐๐ถ๐๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐
The Supreme Court emphasised that termination from government service carries severe financial and social consequences, affecting not only the employee but also their family.
"The award of punishment of dismissal or removal from service is the harshest measure of punishment and no less than a death penalty for the government servant. It has cascading effects and touches even the family of the employee," the bench said.
The court observed that removal from service could result in the forfeiture of accumulated service-linked benefits, leaving an employee without financial security.
It stressed that constitutional courts cannot remain passive when disciplinary action results in such serious consequences without sufficient legal justification.
"If such are the drastic consequences, the writ court should not be a mute spectator. In appropriate cases, the writ court is required to come out of the self-imposed bar and entertain the challenge laid to an order of punishment," the bench said.
๐ก๐ผ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐๐ต ๐ด๐๐ถ๐น๐
Examining the disciplinary proceedings, the apex court found that no documents or evidence had been produced before the one-man commission to substantiate the allegations against Saravanan.
The bench said the inquiry report had pronounced the employee guilty without establishing the allegations through legally acceptable material.
It questioned the fairness of condemning an employee solely on hearsay while imposing a punishment with potentially irreversible consequences.
The court further noted that the university's disciplinary authority had failed to explain why it accepted the commission's findings despite the absence of essential evidence.
"The disciplinary authority by accepting the report of the one-man commission, completely overlooked that the findings recorded thereunder are based on conjectures and surmises," the bench observed.
It held that the university's decision to remove Saravanan from service violated the principles of natural justice.
๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐'๐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ
The Supreme Court also rejected the university's argument that the Madras High Court's single-judge bench should not have entertained Saravanan's petition because an alternative statutory remedy was available under Tamil Nadu service rules.
The apex court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically prevent a High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226.
It said the principle requiring litigants to exhaust statutory remedies was a self-imposed limitation intended to guide judicial discretion, rather than an absolute prohibition.
"The powers of judicial review are also exercised by the High Court to examine the legality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in an order passed by the departmental authority," the bench said.
The court explained that while judges may ordinarily decline intervention when an effective alternative remedy exists, exceptional circumstances involving serious injustice justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ต ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ
The Supreme Court found that the Madras High Court's division bench had interfered with the single judge's decision without providing cogent or justifiable reasons.
It endorsed the single judge's conclusion that the inquiry findings were unsustainable because of the complete absence of essential evidence establishing misconduct.
The bench held that the disciplinary authority had acted in breach of natural justice by imposing the punishment of removal from service without legally admissible evidence.
Restoring the single judge's decision, the apex court directed Saravanan's reinstatement, reinforcing that disciplinary authorities must base serious penalties on credible evidence and follow principles of fairness.
The judgment also underlined the responsibility of constitutional courts to intervene when administrative decisions impose disproportionate consequences without adequate evidentiary or procedural safeguards.