2022 (5) TMI 1485 - SC - Indian Laws

Demand of terminal benefits and arrears of pension - grant of premium to dishonesty - existence of evidence which may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge or not - HELD THAT - The High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent delinquent officer from service. The High Court has erred in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which as such were on appreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The fact that the criminal court acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appointing authority was justified in dismissing the delinquent officer from service is concerned looking to the seriousness of the charge proved of misappropriating the sum of Rs.10 lakhs and not depositing the same with the Bank, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the charge and misconduct held to be proved? - HELD THAT - As per the evidence on record, he went along with the false and fabricated document dated 06.08.1996 along with another person and he introduced that person as a new cashier and he ensured that the voucher was not signed by him but singed by the other person who was introduced by him as a new cashier. Therefore, he saw to it that there is no evidence on record that he actually received the money. This shows the criminal mind/conduct on the part of the delinquent officer. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/management had committed any error in dismissing the respondent delinquent officer from service. The order passed by the Management dismissing the respondent delinquent officer on proved charge and misconduct is hereby restored - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's interference with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
2. Adequacy and reliability of evidence in the departmental enquiry.
3. Impact of the respondent's acquittal in criminal proceedings on the disciplinary action.
4. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal from service.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Interference with the Findings of the Enquiry Officer:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which were based on the appreciation of evidence on record. The High Court reappreciated the evidence, which is not permissible under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Court cited multiple precedents, including *State of Karnataka vs. N. Ganga Raj* and *B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India*, to emphasize that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and not the reappreciation of evidence. The Court concluded that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority.

2. Adequacy and Reliability of Evidence in the Departmental Enquiry:

The Supreme Court noted that the Enquiry Officer's findings were based on substantial evidence, including the testimonies of nine witnesses and 41 documents. The evidence established that the delinquent officer prepared a fraudulent letter, presented it at the Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, and withdrew Rs.10 lakhs, which was not accounted for at the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. The Court held that the management had successfully proven the complicity of the delinquent officer. It was emphasized that the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence, as the findings of the Enquiry Officer were supported by substantial evidence.

3. Impact of the Respondent's Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on the Disciplinary Action:

The Supreme Court clarified that the acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings does not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The Court noted that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings are different. The respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by being given the benefit of doubt, which does not affect the findings of guilt in the departmental enquiry. The Court cited precedents, including *State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya*, to support this view.

4. Proportionality of the Punishment of Dismissal from Service:

The Supreme Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer. The Court considered the seriousness of the charge, which involved the misappropriation of Rs.10 lakhs, and the modus operandi adopted by the officer. It was noted that the officer introduced another person as a new cashier to ensure that there was no direct evidence of him receiving the money, demonstrating a criminal mind. The Court concluded that the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Single Judge's order setting aside the punishment. The Court restored the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the appellant Bank.