High Court's power of judicial review in disciplinary matters not akin to adjudication on merits as appellate authority: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority [General Manager (Operation-1) Appellate Authority, UCO Bank and Others v. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj]..A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka was adjudicating an appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the disciplinary proceedings and consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent, who had committed certain misconduct while working as an officiating manager in UCO Bank."So far as the scope of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it has been settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of the appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. At the same time, the power of judicial review is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority," the Supreme Court held..Power of judicial review is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.Supreme Court .BackgroundAn inquiry was conducted against the present respondent by an Inquiry officer under the UCO Bank Officers Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976, where the respondent was found guilty for three of the charges alleged against him, while one of the charges was not found to be proven.The Disciplinary Authority upheld the inquiry of the Inquiry officer and imposed punishment on the respondent for the misconduct.In an appeal by the respondent, the appellate authority upheld the guilt of the respondent but modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on two charges.Aggrieved, the respondent had preferred a writ before the Allahabad High Court challenging the penalty imposed upon him.The High Court went on to exonerate the respondent of the two charges (whose punishments were modified by the appellate authority) levied upon him but his guilt for one of the charges was still upheld.Aggrieved, the General Manager, appellate authority moved the present appeal before the top Court..JudgmentAt the outset, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court was incorrect in proceeding on the premise that the appellate authority while modifying the punishment for two charges had exonerated the respondent of the same.The top court then went on to analyze the power of the High Court under Article 226 in matters pertaining to disciplinary inquiry."So far as the scope of judicial review in matters of disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it has been settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice," the Court said.Moreover, the top Court was also of the view that the power of judicial review of the High Court in the instant case is not analogous to adjudication of case on merits as an appellate authority.Importantly, in its findings, the Court noted that before the High Court, the respondent never argued against the manner in which the inquiry was conducted or any lapses that may have occurred or the procedure not being followed.The Court, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal..Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate-on-Record Ram Swarup Sharma, advocates Sarfaraz Khan, Nusrat Ali Siddiqi, Praveen Gaur, Firasat Ali Siddiqi, Karan Mamgain, Shaiyra Khanna, Ravi S Gupta appeared on behalf of the appellant.Senior Advocate Dr Manish Singhvi, Advocates-on-Record Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, advocates Apurv S, Smriti Singh and Ajay Kumar Pandey appeared on behalf of respondent..[Read Judgment]