The Supreme Court has held that a Letters Patent Bench may hear an appeal on both facts and law, but should not interfere with a Single Judge’s writ order merely because it takes a different view. It must find a clear, glaring error. It has restored a Single Judge’s order setting aside the removal of a Periyar University Deputy Registrar, because the inquiry findings against him rested on no evidence.
A Letters Patent Appeal is not a second appeal and can be heard on both facts and law, but the Letters Patent Bench should be slow to interfere with a Single Judge’s writ order, and only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record. It must not reappreciate evidence merely because it holds a different view. A finding in a departmental inquiry based on conjecture or on no evidence is perverse, and the writ court can quash it without that being a reappraisal of evidence. The rule of alternate remedy is one of convenience, and a writ court can interfere in cases of removal from service where the findings are perverse.
R. Saravanan, appointed in 2000, was removed from service in July 2013 after a one-man Commission headed by a retired judicial officer held three charges proved: influencing a college affiliation where his wife was a managing trustee, buying a house in his mother’s name without permission and buying a Santro car beyond his income. The Madras High Court’s Single Judge quashed the removal as based on no evidence, but a Division Bench reversed this in 2019 by reappreciating the material. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar first rejected the technical objections: the inquiry followed the TN Service Rules, he knew he faced a disciplinary proceeding and took part in it, and the Commission was validly appointed. But on merits, the Commission found that his position “could have” influenced the affiliation, with no document or witness showing that he did. For the house, it held the charge proved because he did not produce the title deed of his mother’s house, which put the burden on him. For the car, the only reason was that he had not taken the University’s permission. The court said that an inquiry officer is not a prosecutor, and that findings based on surmises, conjecture and an adverse inference without evidence are perverse. Spotting a total lack of evidence is not reappreciation of evidence, and so the writ court could interfere. It also held that exhaustion of the statutory appeal is a rule of convenience, since removal from service is the harshest punishment. A Letters Patent Bench can review facts, but should be slow to disturb a writ court’s decision on relevant considerations, and should interfere only for glaring, demonstrable errors. The Division Bench’s judgment was set aside, and the writ court’s order restored.
Citation: R. Saravanan v. Periyar University rep. by its Registrar & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4216 of 2020, Supreme Court (Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar), decided on 16.10.2026 | Citation: 2026 INSC 1136
Leave a Reply