9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority in the teeth of a plethora of judicial pronouncements of this Court defining and delimiting the scope of interference by the High Court with the punishment awarded to a guilty employee by disciplinary authority? Whether the High Court has gravely erred in interfering with the punishment awarded to the respondent who was found in the departmental enquiry guilty of misappropriation and other heinous malpractices causing thereby enormous loss in stock and cash to the Corporation, an institution primarily concerned with distribution of the essential commodities among the weaker sections of the population of the State of Tamil Nadu? - C.A. 623 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2006 - LAKSHMANAN A.C, J. JUDGMENT: The present appeal was preferred against the final judgment and order dated 19.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Writ Appeal No. 2592 of 2001 dismissing the same. Factual Background: The factual background, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows:- The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (in short the Corporation ) is constituted to fulfil its chief objective of distributing essential commodities amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation accounts and money for their personal benefits. (iv) That he/she proved himself to be an irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy employee of the Corporation. Meanwhile, on 17.02.1984, the respondent had moved the High Court by filing writ petition No. 1337 of 1984 to quash the order of suspension dated 28.01.1983. She also moved W.M.P. No. 2084 of 1984 praying for stay of the operation of the order of suspension. By order dated 17.02.1984, the learned single Judge of the High Court restored the service of the respondent herein with payment of full salary subject to deduction of the subsistence allowance already paid to her. Meanwhile, Departmental Enquiry was instituted against the respondent herein in respect of the aforementioned four charges. After a full-fledged enquiry in which the respondent fully participated, the Enquiry Officer, vide his Enquiry Report dated 11.06.1991, recorded his conclusions based on the evidence on record holding (1) that charge No.1 is not proved; (2) that charge No.2 is partly proved; (3) that charge No.3 is not proved and (4) that charge No.4 is partly proved. On 14.06.1991, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the period of her suspension. Vide order dated 21.09.1993, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order directing recovery from the respondent the proportionate amount of the principal loss in the sum of ₹ 34,436.85 without any interest, while categorically holding that the respondent's responsibility in receipt of mis-appropriation could not at all be brushed aside and that her explanation was found not acceptable. On 05.10.1993, the respondent again moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No. 18502 of 1993 praying for quashing the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991. The Appellate Aauthority, vide his order dated 16.06.1994, dismissed the respondent's appeal after exhaustively dealing with her submissions in the light of the documentary evidence on record. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Order, dismissing her Departmental Appeal, the respondent moved the High Court by preferring writ petition No.14652 of 1994 challenging the correctness of the aforementioned order. In the meanwhile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai acquitted the respondent herein of the charges under Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. on 27.09.2000. Both the writ petitions filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of dismissal and the Appellate Authority while dismissing the respondent's departmental appeal assigned no reasons whatsoever in support of their conclusion. He relied on Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and Others 2003 (3) SCC 583, Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Others, 2005(7) SCC 764, B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749. According to Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel for the respondent, the enquiry officer found charge Nos. 2 4 have been partly proved against the respondent without giving proper reasons and supported by evidence and, therefore, the enquiry report cannot be relied upon. He cited Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Others, 1985 (3) SCC 378. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority has passed the dismissal order without giving a hearing to the delinquent employee/respondent and without specifically disagreeing with the enquiry report. Before the dismissal order, the disciplinary authority has not properly considered the explanation given by the employee/respondent or without hearing the employee-respondent. He relied on Punjab National B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference by this Court and that, therefore, the respondent is fit to be reinstated with consequential benefits. Both the learned counsel invited our attention to the relevant pleadings, annexures filed along with the appeal and also of the rulings of this Court. The following questions of law arise for consideration and adjudication by this Court:- 1) Whether the High Court has gravely erred in law in holding that the acquittal of the respondent herein by the Court of C.J.M., Chennai ought to have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, while dismissing the respondent from service vide order dated 28.11.1991; 2) Whether the High Court has not gravely erred in law by ignoring to appreciate that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service was the most appropriate punishment in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, based on independent appreciation of evidence on record as well as the categorical findings recorded by the enquiry officer in perfect accordance with the requirements of the rules applicable to the disciplinary proceedings in the appellant-Corporation; 3) Whether the High Court has not gravely erred in law vitiatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was patently misconceived in reaching the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. clinched issue before the departmental enquiry, while losing sight of the well settled law that the scope of criminal proceedings in the Court of criminal law and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct and exclusive and independent. The learned single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings and the departmental disciplinary actions are not the same. We have perused the order of dismissal dated 28.11.1991 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.06.1994 upholding the order of dismissal with dispassionate judicial mind. In our opinion, both the orders aforementioned are exhaustive in details, impeccable on facts and armed with irrefutable reasons in support of the conclusions. The learned Judges of the Division Bench who dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Corporation upheld the patently erroneous judgment of the learned single Judge virtually on all those grounds and reasons which had appealed to the learned sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417). In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of proof beyond doubt has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority. In B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. (1995 (6) SCC 749) the scope of judicial review was indicated by stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt , he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability . Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal Court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and relief prayed for by both the parties can be suitably moulded by this Court. We are unable to agree with the above submission which, in our opinion, has no force. The scope of judicial review is very limited. Sympathy or generosity as a factor is impermissible. In our view, loss of confidence as the primary factor and not the amount of money mis-appropriated. In the instant case, respondent employee is found guilty of mis-appropriating the Corporation funds. There is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or mis-placed sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary and appellate authority. The other contention taken by Mr. Francis that criminal proceedings which were initiated against the respondent ended in acquittal, on merits, and that became final. A lenient view must be taken since the charges in both the cases are identically the same. We have already elaborately discussed about this point factually and also with reference to the judgments referred to supra and fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that out of 11 employees, 9 were dismissed from service including the respondent herein and 2 employees were not charge-sheeted. In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, the conclusion of the learned single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal. The Civil Appeal stands allowed. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority ordering dismissal is confirmed and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No. 14652 of 1994 as confirmed by the appellate Judges in writ appeal No. 19646 of 2001 dated 25.01.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
