The Supreme Court has held that a High Court’s Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent Appeal cannot interfere with a single judge’s decision under Article 226 merely because it prefers a different view. The appellate bench must identify cogent grounds, demonstrably erroneous findings or a glaring mistake warranting interference, while giving due weight to the writ court’s exercise of discretion.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal by R. Saravanan, a former Deputy Registrar of Periyar University. The Court set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench’s judgment restoring his removal from service and revived the single judge’s decision granting him relief.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The central question was whether a Letters Patent Bench exercising jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court’s Letters Patent could reverse a writ court’s decision simply because it reached a different conclusion.
The Supreme Court clarified that a Letters Patent Appeal is not equivalent to a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Its scope is not confined to questions of law, and the appellate bench may, in appropriate cases, examine findings of fact.
However, this jurisdiction carries inherent limits. The Division Bench must ordinarily exercise restraint when reviewing a single judge’s discretionary decision under Article 226, particularly where that discretion rests on relevant considerations.
The Court explained that interference requires a clear mistake capable of changing the outcome. Minor errors or the mere availability of another view do not provide sufficient grounds to reverse the writ court.
“Simply put, the Letters Patent Bench can not interfere with the decision rendered by the writ Court which is otherwise just and reasonable,” the Bench observed.
Saravanan was appointed as Assistant Registrar of Periyar University on May 2, 2000. While he was serving as Deputy Registrar, a complaint concerning his assets prompted the Higher Education Department to direct an inquiry.
A three-member committee was initially constituted to examine allegations that he had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. According to the University, the committee could not proceed because he obstructed its functioning and intimidated its members.
The University subsequently constituted a one-man commission headed by a retired judicial officer on April 19, 2011.
The removal ultimately rested on three charges. The first alleged that Saravanan influenced the grant of affiliation to Ganga College of Education, where his wife was a managing trustee. The second concerned a house standing in his mother’s name, which the University alleged he had acquired without permission. The third related to the purchase of a Santro car worth approximately ₹4 lakh, allegedly beyond his regular sources of income.
By a communication dated July 26, 2013, the University informed him that its Syndicate had accepted the inquiry findings and decided to remove him from service with effect from July 27, 2013.
Saravanan challenged his removal before the Madras High Court. He argued, among other things, that the one-man commission lacked authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings and that its findings were unsupported by evidence.
The University opposed the petition, including on the ground that he had not exhausted the statutory appellate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
The single judge examined the inquiry report and concluded that the findings underlying the removal were not supported by material on record.
On the University’s appeal, however, the Division Bench reassessed the inquiry materials and held that documentary evidence corroborated the commission’s conclusions. It consequently reversed the single judge’s order and restored the removal.
The Supreme Court rejected Saravanan’s objection to the authority and constitution of the one-man commission.
It noted that the applicable service rules permitted the disciplinary authority to appoint an authority to inquire into charges. The retired judicial officer heading the commission had been appointed by the competent authority.
Saravanan had received the charges, submitted his explanation and participated in the proceedings. The University examined 22 witnesses in his presence, and he was also given an opportunity to respond to the adverse findings.
The Court therefore concluded that the commission had conducted the proceedings in accordance with the statutory rules and that Saravanan clearly understood he was facing disciplinary action.
The Bench also reiterated that every procedural lapse does not automatically invalidate an inquiry. Alleged breaches of natural justice must be assessed in their factual setting, including whether they caused prejudice to the employee.
Although the inquiry’s constitution and procedure survived scrutiny, the findings supporting removal did not.
On the allegation of influencing affiliation, the Court found that the witnesses had not provided evidence establishing that Saravanan used his position to secure affiliation for the college. The commission inferred misconduct principally because he occupied a responsible position and the possibility of his influence could not be ruled out.
The Supreme Court found that such reasoning could not substitute for evidence of wrongdoing.
Regarding the house property, the commission relied on Saravanan’s payment of housing loan instalments, his status as a co-borrower and his failure to produce documents establishing his mother’s ownership. It inferred that he was the real owner of the property.
The Court found that the report drew inferences that could not legally sustain the finding against him.
The vehicle charge similarly revealed a gap between the allegation and the reasoning adopted. While the allegation concerned acquisition beyond his known income, the commission relied on his failure to produce permission for purchasing the car and obtaining the loan. The report itself recorded that he had borrowed ₹2.82 lakh and paid monthly installments of ₹6,434 from his salary.
Considering the findings together, the Supreme Court concluded that essential evidence establishing the misconduct was absent. It also noted that the removal order did not explain why the Syndicate accepted the commission’s report.
The judgment emphasises that a disciplinary inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding. An inquiry officer must objectively determine whether the allegations are established and cannot assume the role of a prosecutor seeking to prove the employee guilty.
The applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities. Nevertheless, the findings must have an evidentiary foundation.
The Court distinguished between the flexibility available in departmental proceedings—including consideration of hearsay evidence—and findings resting entirely on assumptions or conjecture. A conclusion unsupported by material on record is perverse and cannot sustain disciplinary punishment.
The University argued that the single judge had exceeded the limits of judicial review by examining the correctness of the disciplinary decision.
Rejecting that contention, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between reassessing the weight of evidence and determining whether any evidence exists to support a finding.
A writ court ordinarily cannot function as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings. However, it may intervene where the conclusion rests on no evidence, defies logic or relies on legally impermissible inferences.
The Court held that the single judge had properly examined the report to determine whether the findings were perverse. That exercise did not amount to an impermissible reconsideration of the merits.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench had displaced a well-reasoned decision without cogent or justifiable grounds.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: PMLA Bail Conditions Can’t Override Right to Liberty Amid Prolonged Trial: Supreme Court
