9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Allegations of misconduct leading to dismissal, challenge to dismissal based on acquittal in criminal case, interference by appellate authority, interference by High Court, adequacy of evidence in departmental enquiry, proportionality of punishment.
Allegations of misconduct leading to dismissal: The Respondent, employed as a clerk in the Appellant Bank, faced charges related to unauthorized disclosure of account information and improper transfer of funds leading to a fraudulent withdrawal. A charge-sheet was issued, and after a joint inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal based on one of the charges. Challenge to dismissal based on acquittal in criminal case: Following an acquittal in a criminal case related to the same allegations, the Respondent challenged the dismissal through writ petitions and appeals, citing the criminal court's decision as a ground for appeal. Interference by appellate authority and High Court: The appellate authority dismissed the appeal based on delay, leading to further challenges in the High Court. The High Court ultimately set aside the dismissal, citing the criminal case's pendency as a valid reason for delay and questioning the proportionality of the punishment. Adequacy of evidence in departmental enquiry: The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not reassess evidence in domestic enquiries but may interfere if findings are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse. The test for perversity is whether a reasonable tribunal could have arrived at the same conclusion based on the evidence. Proportionality of punishment: The Court highlighted that loss of confidence in an employee due to negligence can justify dismissal. In this case, the Respondent's actions enabled a fraudulent withdrawal, leading to a loss of confidence by the bank. The Court noted that dismissal may be warranted for employees guilty of gross negligence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the finding of guilt but modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, considering the absence of misappropriation or fraudulent conduct. The Court deemed the High Court's decision to reinstate with back wages as inappropriate, opting for compulsory retirement instead.
|
