Vakil Help Desk News: the Supreme Court has set aside the removal of a Periyar University officer, holding that findings based on what an employee 'could have' done are perverse, and that a High Court Division Bench can overturn a Single Judge only for a glaring error.
Vakil Help Desk News, Labour & Employment. An employee cannot be removed on findings built on suspicion rather than evidence, and a High Court's Division Bench should not overturn a Single Judge's well-reasoned decision just because it takes a different view. The Supreme Court made both points in R. Saravanan v. Periyar University (2026 INSC 1136).
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
The case
The appellant joined Periyar University as Assistant Registrar in 2000 and later became Deputy Registrar. After a complaint about his assets, a one-man inquiry commission found three charges proved: that he used his position to secure affiliation for a college run by his wife, that a house was acquired in his mother's name, and that he bought a car without permission. The University removed him from service in 2013.
A Single Judge of the Madras High Court set the punishment aside, finding the commission's conclusions unsupported by material. On a writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench re-examined the material and restored the removal.
What the Supreme Court held
- A Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal can interfere with a Single Judge's writ decision only where the findings are demonstrably wrong and the error is glaring on the face of the record — not merely because another view is possible.
- Findings in a disciplinary inquiry must be based on evidence. The college-affiliation charge was held proved only because the officer 'could have' influenced the authorities, and other findings rested on inferences. Findings unsupported by evidence are perverse and can be corrected by a writ court.
- An available statutory appeal is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's decision in the officer's favour.
Why it matters
The ruling is a reminder to employers — public and private — that disciplinary action must stand on proof, and to employees that a reasoned writ-court order in their favour will not be lightly overturned on appeal.
What this means for you
Employers: before dismissing or removing an employee after an inquiry, make sure each charge is proved by evidence on record — not by assumptions about what the employee might have done. Employees: if you have been punished on findings without evidence, a writ court can set them aside, and an appeal court should not overturn that relief without a clear error. Take legal advice early, as time limits apply.