Service Law: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds – Dismissal from service – Enquiry officer noticed in his enquiry report that the respondent delinquent neither produced any document nor witness in self-defence and even never requested to allow him to defend him by a representative of his choice – Enquiry officer examined all the charges and found charges 2 to 7 proved while charge no.1 was held to be not proved – Disciplinary authority revisited the record of enquiry and while upholding the finding of fact in reference to charge no.2-7 disagreed on finding on charge no.1 and held charge no.1 to be proved – Appellate authority upheld the finding of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the punishment of dismissal – High Court set aside punishment of dismissal holding that disagreement of disciplinary authority on charge no.1 caused great prejudice to the employee and, that apart, the disciplinary/appellate authority passed a non-speaking order which was in violation of the principles of natural justice – On appeal, held: Disciplinary authority on receiving the report of enquiry, if was not in agreement with the finding of enquiry officer, was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before recording his finding of guilt – Thus, the procedure as prescribed by law was not followed and that caused prejudice to the respondent and it was in violation of the principles of natural justice – So far as the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to charge No. 1 was concerned, that could not be held to be justified in holding him guilty – But charge no.1 is severable from the other charges (charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the respondent which were found proved by the enquiry officer – If the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of dismissal illegal but finding of guilt being recorded by enquiry officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered with and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency. Judicial Review: Scope of – Held: Power of judicial review of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself – It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
Constitution of India: Arts.226, 136 – Power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries – Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Art.226 or Art.136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Service Law: Departmental enquiry – It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings – However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee.
Bank/Banking: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds – Dismissal from service – In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee – It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired – For this additional reason, High Court erred in setting aside order of dismissal of respondent against whom findings of the guilt of grave delinquency were established. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. [Paras 23, 25][70-E; 71-C-E]
State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302:[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 411 ; Government of T.N. and Another v. A. Rajapandian (1995) 1 SCC 216 : [1994]
4 Suppl. SCR 707 ; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR
644 ; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v. Mahesh Dahiya (2017) 1 SCC 768 : [2016]
9 SCR 879 ; Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471 – relied on.
State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 648 ; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC 776 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 454 – referred to.
2. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. [Para 27][71-G-H; 72-A]
3. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. [Para 28][72-B-C]
4. If the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before recording his finding of guilt and undisputedly the procedure as prescribed by law was not followed and that has caused prejudice to the respondent and indeed it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge No. 1 could not be held to be justified in holding him guilty. But Charge no. 1 in reference to which the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has been overturned by the disciplinary authority is severable from the other charges(Charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the respondent which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the finding of fact was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority after meeting out objections raised by the respondent delinquent in his written brief furnished at different stages. [Paras 34, 35] [73-G-H; 74-A-C]
5. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency which was an apparent error being committed by the High Court while interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent employee. [Para 36][74-C-E]
State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 648 – followed. Binny Ltd. v. Workmen (1972) 3 SCC 806 : [1972]
3 SCR 518 ; Sawarn Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others AIR 1976 SC 232 – relied on.
6. In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this additional reason, High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal. [Para 43][77-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.