In R. Saravanan v. Periyar University (2026 INSC 1136), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a Letters Patent appeal and allowed the appeal of a University Deputy Registrar. It set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment that had restored his removal from service, and restored the Single Judge's order quashing that removal (paras 30–31). The Court held that a Letters Patent Bench under Clause 15 may interfere with a writ court's decision only where its findings are demonstrably erroneous and the error is glaring on the face of the record (paras 28–29). It also held that disciplinary findings resting on conjecture ("could have" influenced) are findings on no evidence, which can be corrected by certiorari under Article 226 (paras 16–21).
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Letters Patent (Madras High Court), Clause 15 – Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 – Rules 17(g) and 19 – Departmental inquiry – Findings based on no evidence – Scope of intra-court appeal.
Held: (i) A Letters Patent Bench is not an ordinary court of appeal over a writ court's discretion. It should be slow to interfere, and may do so only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of the record. A mere difference of view, or some error of fact or law, is not enough.
(ii) An inquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. Findings must rest on evidence on record, not on conjectures and surmises.
(iii) A finding unsupported by any evidence is perverse and raises a question of law correctable by certiorari. Correcting it is not re-appreciation of evidence.
(iv) The availability of a statutory appeal under Rule 19 is not an absolute bar to Article 226 relief. Exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion.
(v) The Division Bench erred in re-appraising evidence and drawing adverse inferences, including by placing on the delinquent the burden of disproving the charges.
(vi) The domestic inquiry itself, conducted by a One-man Commission under Rule 17(g), was procedurally valid.
(paras 1, 11–32)
Judgment Intelligence
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge's order quashing removal from service restored.
Case: R. Saravanan v. Periyar University, represented by its Registrar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1136
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13812 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4216 of 2020)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 16 October 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Articles 226 and 311, Constitution of India; Clause 15, Letters Patent of the Madras High Court; Rules 17(g) and 19, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955
Impugned Order: Madras High Court (Division Bench), judgment dated 29 August 2019 in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018, reversing W.P. No. 23936 of 2013
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings
- A Letters Patent Bench may interfere with a writ court's decision only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the error is glaring on the face of the record (para 29).
- A Letters Patent Bench should ordinarily be slow to interfere with the discretion exercised by the writ court (para 28).
- An inquiry officer must decide on evidence. Holding a charge proved because the delinquent "could have" influenced a decision is conjecture, not proof (paras 13–17).
- A finding unsupported by any evidence is an error of law, open to certiorari under Article 226 (para 21).
- Exhaustion of the statutory appeal under Rule 19 is a rule of convenience, not a bar, especially where removal from service is involved (para 22).
- The burden of proving misconduct lies on the employer. An adverse inference cannot be drawn merely because the employee did not produce documents (para 23).
- The One-man Commission was validly constituted under Rule 17(g), and the inquiry complied with the Rules (paras 11–12).
Brief Facts
The appellant was appointed Assistant Registrar of Periyar University on 2 May 2000 and was later promoted as Deputy Registrar (para 4). In 2008, a complaint about his assets led the Department of Higher Education to direct a preliminary inquiry. A three-member committee was formed, but the University alleged that he threatened its members and did not co-operate (para 4).
On 19 April 2011, the University constituted a One-man Commission headed by a retired judicial officer. A memorandum of 14 charges was served in June 2011, and 22 witnesses were examined (paras 4, 11). The Commission held three charges proved. Charge 1 alleged that he used his position to secure affiliation for Ganga College of Education, of which his wife was Managing Trustee. Charge 4 concerned a house bought in his mother's name without permission, and Charge 10 a Santro car bought beyond his known income (para 4).
On 26 July 2013, the Syndicate accepted the report and removed him from service with effect from 27 July 2013 (para 5). The Single Judge allowed W.P. No. 23936 of 2013, holding that the findings were not based on any material (para 7). On the University's intra-court appeal in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018, the Division Bench re-appraised the evidence and restored the removal by judgment dated 29 August 2019 (paras 3, 7).
Issue (para 1)
- Whether a Letters Patent Bench, under Clause 15, can interfere with the decision of a writ court exercising powers under Article 226 merely because it takes a different view.
- Whether the disciplinary findings against the appellant were based on evidence, or on conjecture and surmise.
- Whether the writ petition was barred because the appellant did not exhaust the statutory appeal under Rule 19 of the 1955 Rules.
Court's Findings
Arguments of the parties (para 6): The appellant argued that the One-man Commission had no authority to frame charges, and that its findings were speculative. The University, through Senior Advocate Romy Chacko, argued that the writ court cannot act as an appellate authority, and that the appellant had an unexhausted statutory appeal under Rule 19.
Domestic inquiry held valid (paras 8–12): The Court examined Article 311 and the procedure under the Tamil Nadu Rules. It found that the inquiry was conducted under the Rules, 22 witnesses were examined, and the appellant had adequate opportunity. The Commission's formation under Rule 17(g) was upheld. His separate challenge to its constitution had been dismissed as infructuous and never appealed. On this point the University succeeded.
Findings rested on conjecture (paras 13–17): Charge 1 was held proved because influence on the affiliation "could not be ruled out", without any incriminating material. Charges 4 and 10 were held proved because he did not produce the title deed or the University's permission, although he was a co-obligant on the housing loan. The Court held that an inquiry officer is not a prosecutor, must not presume guilt, and must base findings on material on record.
Writ court rightly interfered (paras 18–21): This was a case of no evidence, not mere appraisal of evidence. A finding unsupported by any evidence raises a question of law and is open to certiorari. The disciplinary authority's acceptance of the report without reasons also breached natural justice.
Alternative remedy no bar (para 22): The Rule 19 objection was never decided by either Bench. Exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of convenience, and removal from service justified writ intervention.
Division Bench erred (para 23): It re-examined the entire evidence and inferred, on conjecture, that the appellant had a vested interest and misused his position. It drew an adverse inference from non-production of title documents, though the party alleging misconduct must prove it. It also found disproportionate assets despite his monthly income of Rs. 29,175 and his instalment payments on the house and vehicle loans.
Scope of Clause 15 (paras 24–29): The Court traced the Letters Patent of 1865 and Clause 15 as amended in 1927. A Letters Patent appeal can review findings of fact. But the Bench must give due weight to the writ court's reasoned discretion, and may interfere only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the error is glaring.
Final Outcome / Directions (paras 30–32)
- The judgment dated 29 August 2019 in W.A. No. 2329 of 2018 was set aside.
- The writ court's decision in W.P. No. 23936 of 2013 was restored, so the order removing the appellant from service stands quashed.
- The civil appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
- Pending applications were disposed of.
- The judgment gives no separate direction on reinstatement or back wages. These follow the restored writ court order.
Legal Principle
An intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a second round of fact-finding. The appellate Bench may interfere with a writ court's just and reasonable decision only for a demonstrable and glaring error. A disciplinary finding resting on suspicion, assumptions, or the delinquent's failure to disprove the charge is a finding on no evidence. It is an error of law that the writ court can correct by certiorari, even where a statutory appeal is available.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao, (1974) 2 SCC 492 – Relied upon – scope of an intra-court Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge's decision. Discussed at para 27.
- Alapati Kasi Viswanatham v. A. Sivarama Krishnayya, C.A. No. 232 of 1961, decided on 11 January 1963 (unreported, five-Judge Bench) – Relied upon – a Letters Patent Bench may review findings of fact. Discussed at para 27.
- Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel, (1976) 1 SCC 518 – Relied upon – a finding is perverse where there is no evidence to support it. Relied upon by the writ court and discussed at paras 7 and 20.
- Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635 – Relied upon – a finding recorded without any evidence is perverse and open to judicial review. Discussed at paras 7 and 20.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Para 1: "This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the judgment of reversal and raises an important question of law as to the extent of powers and jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court. Putting it precisely, the question that falls for consideration is whether the Letters Patent Bench can interfere with the decision of writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merely because it held a different view in the matter."
Para 20: "What follows from the aforementioned judicial precedents is that the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction where there is an error apparent on the face of record and such error has resulted in manifest injustice to a party. What the inquiry report has unfolded is that the appellant has been pronounced guilty without evidence. What could be the worse kind of injustice to him than to hang him only on hearsay. There is a complete lack of essential evidence to record a finding of guilt against the appellant. The order of removal from service does not record any reason why the Syndicate of the University accepted the report of One-man Commission. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the report of One-man Commission completely overlooked that the findings recorded thereunder are based on conjectures and surmises."
Para 21: "Therefore, a finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer not supported by any evidence is open to challenge in a proceeding for certiorari. It is then not a matter in the realm of appreciation of evidence but really of recording a finding contrary to the materials on record. The issue is a pure question of law and amenable to writ jurisdiction. A certiorari may be granted where the statutory Authority acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or in breach of natural justice, or contrary to the applicable rules, or where the statutory Authority considered an irrelevant fact or omitted a relevant fact, or where the decision taken by the statutory Authority is hit by Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness. The departmental Authority may be competent to enter upon an inquiry, but while making the inquiry it cannot act in flagrant disregard to the fundamental principles of law. A decision based on clear ignorance or disregard to the provisions of law or where there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record is certainly amenable to a writ of certiorari."
Para 28: "This is one of the well settled legal principles that the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of the Court of first instance unless a clear mistake which will change the outcome of the case is found to have been committed by the Court. The Letters Patent Bench should ordinarily be slow and refrain from interfering with the discretion exercised by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Letters Patent Bench sitting as a Court of Correction exercises the same jurisdiction as is vested in the Single Judge but the Letters Patent Bench is required to give due weight to the decision of the writ Court where it has exercised its discretion on relevant considerations."
Para 29: "But the Letters Patent Bench can interfere in the matter only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the mistake is glaring on the face of record. There must exist cogent grounds and such grounds are not projected on some minor mistake in the judgment under challenge. The Letters Patent Bench is not entitled to interfere with the decision of writ Court on mere showing of some error of fact or in law. If the decision rendered by the writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is in furtherance of justice, equity and good conscience and is not against public policy then the Letters Patent Bench constituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court or similar provisions of the Letters Patent of other High Courts cannot exercise its appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent to interfere with the writ Court's decision. Simply put, the Letters Patent Bench can not interfere with the decision rendered by the writ Court which is otherwise just and reasonable."
Para 30: "With the foregoing discussions in mind, we have examined the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and find that a well-reasoned decision of the writ Court has been interfered by the Division Bench without any cogent and justifiable reason. The Division Bench of Madras High Court exercised the jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in a matter where no ground for interference was available. The judgment dated 29th August 2019 rendered in W.A. No.2329 of 2018 is, therefore, set aside and the decision rendered by the writ Court in W.P. No.23936 of 2013 is restored."
What the Ruling Means: Practical Impact
- For employees facing departmental action: a charge held proved on the reasoning that the employee "could have" influenced a decision can be challenged directly under Article 226 as a no-evidence finding (paras 13–21).
- For employers and universities: the burden of proving misconduct stays with the employer. Non-production of documents by the employee does not prove the charge. Acceptance of an inquiry report must be supported by reasons (paras 20, 23).
- For intra-court appeals: a writ appeal is not a re-hearing. Appellants before a Division Bench must show a demonstrable, glaring error in the Single Judge's order, not merely a different possible view (paras 28–29).
- On alternative remedy: a pending or unexhausted statutory appeal will not automatically defeat a writ petition against removal from service (para 22).
- For inquiry officers: findings must be tied to specific evidence on record. Assumptions and prosecutorial reasoning will not survive judicial review (paras 16–17).
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in R. Saravanan v. Periyar University?
It set aside the Madras High Court Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge's order quashing the appellant's removal from service as Deputy Registrar (paras 30–31).
2. When can a Letters Patent appeal Bench interfere with a Single Judge's writ decision?
Only where the findings are demonstrably erroneous and the error is glaring on the face of the record. A mere difference of opinion or a minor error of fact or law is not enough (paras 28–29).
3. Can a writ court interfere with findings of a departmental inquiry?
Yes, where the findings are based on no evidence or on conjecture. Such a finding is perverse and raises a question of law open to certiorari (paras 20–21).
4. Is a writ petition barred if a statutory appeal is available?
No. Exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion, not an absolute bar (para 22).
5. Did the Court find the domestic inquiry procedure invalid?
No. The One-man Commission was validly constituted under Rule 17(g) and the procedure complied with the Rules. The defect lay in the findings, which were not based on evidence (paras 11–17).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1136, R. Saravanan v. Periyar University, Letters Patent appeal, Clause 15 Letters Patent, writ appeal scope, Article 226, certiorari, no evidence finding, departmental inquiry, removal from service, alternative remedy, Rule 17(g), Rule 19, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Judgment Copy
Judgment PDF: Read the full judgment text – R. Saravanan v. Periyar University (C.A. No. 13812 of 2026)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).
Read more: Supreme Court · Service Law · Constitutional Law
