The Supreme Court in the case The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr observed and has held that the Constitutional Court, while exercising its power of judicial review cannot decide the case at the very first stage wherein the inquiry is still being conducted and inquiry report being prepared, thus, the evidence cannot be reappreciated at the stage of judicial review in the disciplinary proceeding as if conviction in the criminal trial is being re-examined by the next higher court.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal in the case observed while adjudicating an appeal in the case the Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr. and has set aside the order passed by the High Court whereby the punishment which has been inflicted in departmental proceedings upon an employee was set aside by the High Court, wherein the court reappreciated evidence at the stage of an intra court appeal. Therefore, the bench in the case observed and placed reliance in the case on Deputy General Manager, the Appellate Authority vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, wherein it has been held by the court that in judicial review a Constitutional Court can only evaluate the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision which is taken itself. Thus, it is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has stated that the said court cannot decide the matter in Judicial Review as if it being the first stage of case.
The bench in the case observed and has stated that it is not being disputed by the Respondent No. 1 that fair opportunity of hearing was accorded to him at each and every stage of the inquiry. Therefore, the same findings are given by the bench headed by Single judge.
The court in the case observed and has also noted that the Division Bench of the High Court passed the judgment in a manner as if it being the first stage of the case as if the inquiry was being conducted and the inquiry report was prepared and the same does not come within the scope of Judicial review.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court not to re-appreciate evidence in judicial review, as if the conviction in the criminal trial is being re-examined by the next higher court.
The bench in the case also found that that the Division Bench reappreciated the entire evidence as if the conviction in a criminal trial was being re-examined by the next higher court in the said matter.
Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and has set aside the judgement passed by the Division Bench, wherein the court also restored the order passed by the Single Judge.
