The Kerala High Court recently emphasized that, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, writ courts should refrain from re-evaluating evidence in disciplinary proceedings unless the Inquiry Officer's findings are demonstrably perverse. This principle was underscored in a case involving a senior clerk from the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, who also served as the President of the BMS Karmachari Sangham, an employees' association.
The appellant had filed complaints with the Administrative Committee, alleging various improprieties within the temple's operations. Subsequently, he was issued a charge memo, which he contended was a retaliatory measure for highlighting genuine grievances. In response, he filed two writ petitions: one addressing the temple's administration and the other challenging the disciplinary proceedings against him. The former was dismissed without relief, while the latter led to specific directives. Dissatisfied, he appealed both decisions.
The appellant argued that the disciplinary actions were punitive measures for his attempts to expose malpractices within the temple administration. Conversely, the respondents accused him of indiscipline, asserting that he had leveled baseless allegations against the Administrative Committee. They also noted his absence during the disciplinary hearings.
The Court observed that the appellant failed to present evidence supporting his claims. It reiterated that, during ongoing disciplinary proceedings, writ courts should not reassess evidence unless the Inquiry Officer's conclusions are patently unreasonable. Since the disciplinary process had not yet concluded, the Court found no justification to intervene at that stage.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance that writ courts should exercise restraint in interfering with disciplinary matters, intervening only when there is clear evidence of irrational or unfounded findings by Inquiry Officers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.