In a decision with far-reaching consequences, the Patna High Court on Monday dismissed the writ petition of a former in-charge principal of a residential school challenging his departmental punishment.
Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, whose judgment was uploaded on Monday, said he only examined the decision-making process and not the decision itself. He stressed that “the nature of punishment to be imposed on an employee is entirely the prerogative of the appointing authority.”
Also read: TSPSC Group 1 Services Main Exam 2024 schedule released at tspsc.gov.in, check full timetable here
The Court further clarified that it generally does not give its opinion in such cases under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The petition was filed by Kumar Sunil Sinha, former in-charge headmaster of Arwal Ambedkar Residential Girls High School, who was given compulsory retirement as a part of disciplinary action.
Petitioner’s counsel Mahasweta Chatterjee argued that the sentence was too harsh and should be set aside. She argued that several witnesses had testified in favour of the petitioner, which showed that he had been falsely implicated in the vigilance case.
However, state counsel Prashant Pratap opposed the plea, saying the charges against Sinha were serious as he was caught red-handed taking bribe by the vigilance department team on March 31, 2016.
Pratap argued that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner and the principle of preponderance of evidence was followed in departmental proceedings.
“There was no procedural irregularity in the decision-making process and, therefore, the penalty order does not justify interference under Article 226,” he said.
Dismissing the petition, the Court upheld the departmental action, and reaffirmed the principle that judicial review under Article 226 was limited to assessing the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.
