Adverse remarks and directions for disciplinary action against officials require a prior opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution challenging adverse observations and a direction issued by the Claims Tribunal in an accident-claim case.

Petitioner No. 1, a Head Constable and Investigating Officer, was alleged, along with the other petitioners, to have colluded with the claimant in preparing documents to secure an unwarranted benefit in the claim proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, to initiate a departmental enquiry and punish the petitioners if found guilty.

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal had made adverse findings without affording them an opportunity of hearing and had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing departmental action.

The respondents maintained that the observation was recommendatory and that the disciplinary authority retained independent power to examine misconduct under the service rules.

Whether the Claims Tribunal could make adverse observations against the petitioners and direct initiation of a departmental enquiry and punishment without affording them an opportunity of hearing

Whether the Tribunal’s direction for departmental proceedings was legally sustainable, notwithstanding the disciplinary authority’s independent power to initiate proceedings under the applicable service rules

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle that adverse remarks or strictures affecting a person’s professional or service reputation should not ordinarily be made without giving that person an opportunity of hearing.

Relying on A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, 1990 (2) SCC 533, the Court emphasised judicial restraint and held that unwarranted observations made without hearing the affected person are impermissible.

It further relied on K.P. Singh Kushwaha v. State of M.P., 2005 (2) MPHT 423, which held that a court may point out investigative lapses and direct the superior authority to take action in accordance with law, but cannot itself direct initiation of a departmental enquiry and punishment; and on Sanjay Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 4546 of 2010, decided on 04.05.2011.

The disciplinary authority nevertheless retains independent supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction to examine whether misconduct has been committed and to take action in accordance with the service rules.

The Court found that the Tribunal had attributed collusion and preparation of documents to the petitioners and had coupled those observations with a direction to initiate departmental proceedings and punish them, without providing them an opportunity to respond.

Applying the principles in A.M. Mathur and the coordinate Bench decision in K.P. Singh Kushwaha, the Court held that the Tribunal exceeded the permissible limits of judicial observation and direction.

Although a court may identify irregularities and request the competent authority to act in accordance with law, it cannot predetermine disciplinary action by directing an enquiry and punishment.

At the same time, expunging the Tribunal’s observations did not immunise the petitioners from independent disciplinary scrutiny; the competent authority remained free to act under the service rules on the basis of its own assessment.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty preserved for the disciplinary authority to independently supervise the investigation and initiate appropriate proceedings under the service rules if misconduct was otherwise established.