In a decision that would have far-reaching consequences, the Patna High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition of a former in-charge headmaster of a residential school, challenging his departmental punishment.
Maintaining that it only examined the decision-making process and not the decision itself, Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, whose judgment was uploaded on Monday, asserted that “the nature of the punishment which can be imposed on an employee is absolutely a prerogative of the appointing authority.”
Also read: TSPSC Group 1 Services Mains Exam 2024 schedule released at tspsc.gov.in, check complete timetable here
The court further clarified that it did not ordinarily substitute its opinion in such matters under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The petition was filed by Kumar Sunil Sinha, the former in-charge headmaster of Arwal Ambedkar Residential Girls High School, who was subjected to compulsory retirement as a disciplinary measure.
Petitioner’s counsel, Mahasweta Chatterjee, argued that the punishment was excessively harsh and should be set aside. She contended that several witnesses had testified in favour of the petitioner, suggesting that he had been falsely implicated in a vigilance case.
Also read: Tamil Nadu NEET UG Counselling 2024: Round 1 provisional rank list released at tnmedicalselection.net, check here
However, state counsel Prashant Pratap opposed the petition, asserting that the charges against Sinha were serious, as he was caught red-handed by the vigilance department team while accepting a bribe on March 31, 2016.
Pratap argued that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner and that the departmental proceedings followed the principle of preponderance of evidence.
Also read: Maharashtra NEET UG counselling 2024 underway at cetcell.mahacet.org, apply before August 23, direct link here
“There were no procedural irregularities in the decision-making process, and therefore, the punishment order did not warrant interference under Article 226,” he added.
While dismissing the petition, the court upheld the departmental action, reinforcing 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.
