The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh

re-appreciate the evidence – Evidently, while reappraisal of facts and evidence is not impermissible by the High Court, the infirmity in the underlying order has to be greater than ordinary – It is not the employee’s case that due to omissions by the Department in substantive and/or procedural compliances, prejudice ensued to him – Employee received an opportunity to submit a written representation as also an opportunity of hearing, thus, no violation of the principles of natural justice found – Removal Order cannot be said to be based on ‘no evidence’ – Removal Order was reasoned as on the aspects where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s report, reasons therefor have been assigned – If the Disciplinary Authority accepts findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and proceeds to impose punishment based on the same, no elaborate reasons are required – Removal Order makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the whole material before it and was satisfied to impose punishment on the employee – Wherever and whenever the Disciplinary Authorities concerned impose a major punishment, it would be appropriate for their orders to better engage with the representations/submissions of the delinquent employees concerned – However, in the instant case, in view of the evidentiary material and the process by which a fair opportunity was given to the employee to present his version, this Court is dissuaded from upholding the impugned judgment on account of minor deficiency/ies in the process – Same have not caused prejudice to the employee to the extent warranting judicial interdiction – Factual position as regards the charges pertaining to non-handing over of full charge at the relevant point of time; appointing persons without permission from the Collector/ Registrar; as also, returning the money after one and a half years by the employee, could not be controverted – Moreover, looking to the respondent’s conduct, no arbitrariness or perversity found in the punishment awarded to him – Thus, the impugned judgment quashed and set aside, and removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored. [Paras 21, 22, 28-37] Case Law Cited State of Andhra Pradesh v.

S Sree Rama Rao [1964] 3 SCR 25 : AIR 1963 SC 1723; State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar [2011] 12 SCR 1036 : (2011) 10 SCC 249; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao [1976] 1 SCR 521 : (1975) 2 SCC 557; State Bank of India v. S K Sharma [1996] 3 SCR 972 : (1996) 3 SCC 364; Union of India v. K G Soni [2006] Supp. 4 SCR 560 : (2006) The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh 156 [2024] 8 S.C.R.