9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of withholding promotion due to pending criminal proceedings. 2. Validity of the disciplinary authority's decision overruling the enquiry officer's findings. 3. Appropriateness of the High Court's interference with the disciplinary authority's decision. 4. Entitlement to promotion from 1.1.1986 despite subsequent disciplinary actions. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of Withholding Promotion Due to Pending Criminal Proceedings The respondent, an employee of the Bank of India, was due for promotion in 1981. However, due to a complaint alleging misappropriations, criminal proceedings were initiated, and his promotion was withheld. Despite being found fit for promotion in 1987, the promotion was not effected due to the ongoing criminal cases. The criminal cases concluded favorably for the respondent in 1988, but the promotion order was still not issued. The respondent filed CWP No. 17490/90 seeking the issuance of the promotion order, leading to an interim order by the High Court for ad hoc promotion effective from 1.1.1986. Issue 2: Validity of the Disciplinary Authority's Decision Overruling the Enquiry Officer's Findings A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent in 1991 for alleged misconduct from 1973 to 1978. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent of all charges, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding on charge 1(b), found the respondent guilty, and imposed a major punishment of pay reduction by one stage. The respondent amended his writ petition (CWP No. 12577/92) to seek the setting aside of this punishment. Issue 3: Appropriateness of the High Court's Interference with the Disciplinary Authority's Decision The High Court's learned Single Judge set aside the Disciplinary Authority's penalty, deeming the finding perverse. However, the Supreme Court held that the Disciplinary Authority had followed due process by recording reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer and basing its findings on available evidence. The Court emphasized that judicial review should not reappreciate evidence but only ensure there is some evidence supporting the disciplinary authority's conclusion. Thus, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court reinstated the Disciplinary Authority's decision. Issue 4: Entitlement to Promotion from 1.1.1986 Despite Subsequent Disciplinary Actions Regarding the promotion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The sealed cover procedure, which withholds promotion due to pending proceedings, was not applicable as the criminal proceedings had concluded favorably for the respondent by 1988, and the departmental enquiry began only in 1991. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to promotion from 1.1.1986, and the subsequent disciplinary action in 1995 could not affect this entitlement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals. It upheld the respondent's entitlement to promotion from 1.1.1986, maintaining the High Court's orders in this regard. However, it set aside the High Court's interference with the Disciplinary Authority's punishment, reinstating the penalty of pay reduction by one stage. Each party was to bear its own costs.
|
