Patna High Court has said in a far reaching decision that it is the prerogative of the employer department to decide what punishment to give to its employee. The state government had retired the headmaster of a residential school prematurely, which the headmaster had challenged in the High Court. However, the High Court has clarified in its decision that it has not reviewed the decision of premature retirement, but has only subjected the process adopted for premature retirement to judicial scrutiny. The court of Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court has given this decision.
Sunil Sinha, the principal of Arwal Ambedkar Residential Girls High School, had approached the court against the decision to retire him prematurely. Sunil Sinha’s lawyer Mahasweta Chatterjee said during the arguments in the court that the punishment given is very harsh and should be cancelled. Chatterjee said that many witnesses have testified in favour of the principal, which shows that he has been wrongly implicated in the vigilance department’s case.
Opposing the arguments of the defence, government lawyer Prashant Pratap said that Sinha was caught red handed by the vigilance team taking bribe on 31 March 2016. Pratap told the court that there is sufficient evidence against Sinha and the department has taken appropriate action. The government lawyer told the court that there is no irregularity in the decision making process in this case, so there is no need for court interference in the punishment order.
The High Court rejected the headmaster’s plea and upheld the departmental action. The court said that under Article 226, the court can only review the fairness of the decision-making process, not the decision itself.