High Courts Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence in Departmental Enquiries Like an Appellate Authority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Withdrawal of Promotion Obtained Through Fraudulent Service Record Entry
Case Name: Joginder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Others
Date of Judgment: 17 July 2026
Citation: CWP-9863-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not the correctness of factual findings recorded in departmental proceedings. The High Court cannot act as an appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence or substituting its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority where the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
The Court further held that where a departmental enquiry establishes that an employee secured promotion on the basis of a fraudulent or bogus entry in the service record, and the disciplinary proceedings suffer from no procedural infirmity, the consequential withdrawal of promotion and financial benefits does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Summary: The petitioner, an employee of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), challenged the departmental proceedings whereby his promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Additional Assistant Engineer was withdrawn along with all consequential financial benefits. He also sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the ground that his juniors had been promoted ahead of him.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated following an anonymous complaint alleging that a bogus entry had been made in the petitioner’s service book showing that he had passed the Engineering Subordinate Accounts Departmental Examination, which was an essential qualification for promotion. A preliminary enquiry was followed by a regular departmental enquiry, wherein the Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner had not passed the departmental examination and had consequently obtained promotional and financial benefits to which he was not legally entitled.
The petitioner contended that he had genuinely passed the departmental examination decades earlier and that, owing to the passage of time and his retirement, he was no longer in possession of documentary proof. He argued that the disciplinary authority had wrongly relied upon an anonymous complaint to withdraw the promotion already granted.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that the departmental enquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable service regulations. The petitioner had been served with a charge-sheet, permitted to participate in the enquiry, allowed to submit his defence, furnished with the enquiry report, invited to submit his representation, and granted a personal hearing before the disciplinary authority. The Court found no violation of statutory procedure or principles of natural justice at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings.
Justice Namit Kumar extensively relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali, Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, and other precedents reiterating that constitutional courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not reassess evidence or sit in appeal over departmental findings of fact.
The Court held that judicial review is directed towards examining the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the correctness of the decision itself. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, rendered in violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice, or the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, interference is unwarranted.
Since the findings against the petitioner were supported by evidence collected during the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, the Court declined to interfere. Consequently, the challenge to the withdrawal of promotion failed, and the connected writ petition seeking further promotion also became infructuous.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, upheld the departmental enquiry as well as the order withdrawing the petitioner’s promotion and consequential financial benefits, and refused to interfere with the disciplinary findings in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The connected claim seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was also dismissed.