2021 (1) TMI 1312 - SC - Indian Laws

Suspension for misconduct - misappropriation of bank s money by affording fake credits in his various accounts - HELD THAT - 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. It is thus settled that the 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. 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. To sum up the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. In the case on hand the charge-sheet was served upon the Respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he was serving (Mumfordganj Branch) during the relevant period. In all 7 charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his official duty and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent delinquent and due compliance of the principles of natural justice the enquiry officer in his report while dealing with the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent delinquent specifically indicated that the details of enquiry report contained 22 pages along with documents produced by the presenting officer marked as PEX-1 to PEX-28 to establish the allegations/charges levelled against the Respondent delinquent who neither produced any document nor witness in his defence. In the case on hand the disciplinary/appellate authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the order dated 24th July 1999 the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry including self-contained enquiry report dated 22nd May 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29th June 1999 which was made available to the Respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24th July 1999 - the finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority cannot be accepted which deserves to be set aside. The appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court impugned dated 13th September 2018 is hereby set aside.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.
2. Adequacy of the evidence supporting the charges.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. The impact of concurrent criminal proceedings on the disciplinary action.
5. The appropriateness of the punishment of dismissal from service.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings:
The appellant, a statutory body under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, who was employed as a Cashier/Clerk, for alleged misappropriation of funds. The respondent was suspended on 14th August 1995, and a charge-sheet detailing seven charges was served on 11th April 1996. The enquiry officer, after following the prescribed procedure, found charges 2 to 7 proved, while charge 1 was not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the enquiry officer on charge 1 and found it proved, leading to the respondent's dismissal from service on 24th July 1999.

2. Adequacy of Evidence:
The enquiry officer's report, dated 22nd May 1999, concluded that charges 2 to 7 were substantiated by documentary evidence. The disciplinary authority revisited the report, concurred with the findings on charges 2 to 7, and disagreed on charge 1, providing reasons for the disagreement. The appellate authority also reviewed the record and confirmed the findings, dismissing the respondent's appeal on 15th November 1999.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondent argued that the disciplinary authority's note of disagreement on charge 1 was not served prior to the final decision, violating natural justice principles. The Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural lapse but noted that charges 2 to 7 were independently sufficient to justify the dismissal. The disciplinary and appellate authorities provided detailed reasons for their decisions, addressing the respondent's objections and ensuring a fair hearing.

4. Impact of Concurrent Criminal Proceedings:
Parallel to the disciplinary proceedings, a criminal case was instituted against the respondent for similar allegations under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, CBI Court, on 31st May 2019. The court held that the pendency of criminal proceedings did not preclude the disciplinary action, as both processes are independent.

5. Appropriateness of the Punishment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that in the banking sector, integrity and honesty are paramount. The respondent's misconduct, involving misappropriation of funds, justified the severe penalty of dismissal. The court found that the High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal, as the findings on charges 2 to 7 were sufficient to uphold the disciplinary authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The court upheld the disciplinary action and the penalty of dismissal, emphasizing the importance of integrity in banking and the sufficiency of the proven charges to justify the dismissal. The procedural lapse regarding charge 1 did not undermine the overall validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed.

← Previous Next →