An employee must disclose or recuse when a blood relative is a candidate, even if service rules exclude that relative.

NMDC conducted a special recruitment drive for posts at its Panna project. The appellant, who was posted there as HOD, was not a member of the committees that scrutinised applications, conducted the written test, or evaluated answer sheets. He was, however, nominated to the Skill Test Committee. One candidate, Kismat Singh, was the appellant’s sister’s son.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the appellant was not guilty of the charges under Rule 6 of the NMDC CDA Rules, including failure to disclose the relationship. The Disciplinary Authority nevertheless imposed a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for five years, with future increments postponed; the statutory appeal was rejected.

The writ court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the punishment. The appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Inquiry Officer’s findings had been accepted without a disagreement note and that the penalty was disproportionate.

Under Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, judicial review of disciplinary proceedings concerns the decision-making process; a court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless recognised grounds for interference, such as perversity or mala fides, are established.

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel state that supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction is limited and is not a means to correct every factual or legal error.

In a writ appeal, interference with the writ court’s decision is also limited: the appellate court should not substitute its view absent a decision that is perverse or demonstrably wrong, or an arbitrary, capricious or perverse exercise of discretion.

The Court accepted that the appellant disputed neither that Kismat Singh was his sister’s son nor that he participated in the Skill Test Committee and awarded him marks. It held that, regardless of whether the nephew fell within the formal definition of “relative” under Rule 6, the appellant should have disclosed the relationship to the Project Manager/Appointing Authority or withdrawn from the committee. By failing to do so and participating in the assessment of his nephew, the appellant’s conduct warranted no judicial interference.

Applying the restricted standards of judicial and appellate review, the Court found no basis to disturb the writ court’s decision.

The punishment order and the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition therefore remained undisturbed.