Supreme Court reinstates Periyar University official dismissed without evidence

The Supreme Court has said dismissal from service is no less than a death penalty for a government employee, as it ordered 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, the Press Trust of India reported.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar set aside an order of a division bench of the Madras High Court and upheld a single-judge bench's decision restoring R Saravanan to service.

The Supreme Court said an inquiry report prepared by a one-member commission constituted by the university showed that Saravanan had been pronounced guilty without evidence. It asked what could be a worse form of injustice than to “hang him only on hearsay”.

The court said the division bench had interfered with the single-judge bench's decision without any cogent or justifiable reason.

“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 in its October 16 order, according to PTI.

The court said termination from service results in the forfeiture of all service-linked benefits accrued to a government employee, leaving the person penniless. “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,” it said.

The bench rejected the university's contention that the single-judge bench could not examine the case because Saravanan had an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu service rules.

The Supreme Court said the High Court's powers while hearing a writ petition were not restricted, except by certain self-imposed limitations. It said that although these powers were discretionary, the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to further justice, equity and good conscience.

The court said the High Court could also use its power of judicial review to examine whether an order passed by a departmental authority was illegal, irrational or procedurally improper.

It said a court may sometimes choose not to interfere with a departmental order when a legal remedy is available to a government employee. However, the requirement to first exhaust a remedy available under law was a matter of convenience and not a rigid rule. It was a self-imposed limitation and did not bar a court from exercising its writ powers.

The bench said the single-judge bench had rightly found that no document or evidence was produced before the university's one-member commission that examined the allegations against Saravanan, PTI reported.

It said there was a complete lack of essential evidence to establish his guilt. The order removing him from service also did not explain why the university's Syndicate had accepted the commission's report.

“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 court said. It added that the report drew inferences that could not legally be used against Saravanan.

The Supreme Court concluded that the disciplinary authority had breached the principles of natural justice by removing Saravanan without legally admissible evidence. It held that the single-judge bench was right to examine the commission's findings and restored his reinstatement.

- Ends