The Supreme Court has held that it is not justifiable on part of High Courts while excercising its powers of judicial review, to re-appreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.
The Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that same while dealing with an appeal assailing the Uttarakhand High Court judgement.
The appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer in a Bank when a complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/- when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him.
In view of above, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. In conclusion to it, the Inquiry Officer held the most of the charges as proved. The appellant submitted his reply and contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse to the material placed on record and against the principle of natural justice. He also made allegations of bias against the Chairman of the Bank. However, the disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed. Later, the Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service.
Supreme Court Observation
The Court at the outset noted that even on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer it appears that the High Court has observed that the appellant demanded a bribe solely on the basis of his crossexamination.
The Court then weighed on the allegations of bias against the Bank Chairman.
"There are allegations of bias against the Chairman right from the very beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman was chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the basis of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that subsequent thereto the criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. Be that it may, there were specific allegations of bias against the Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of the departmental proceedings made by the appellant."
It further opined that even looking to the charges proved in the
departmental proceedings we find that as such, there is no financial
loss caused to the Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken
by the appellant to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/ to
Rs.75,000/ in the case of Karamjeet Singh the complainant, which can
be said to be the decision in the bank’s interest.
The Court was of the view that it was harsh and disproportionate on part of the Bank to dismiss him as his record was clea from the 28 years and that there were never no allegations against him.
However, considering the fact 8 that it can be said to be a case of
loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank, we deem it just
and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of
service to that of compulsory retirement, it added.The Court justified the High Court in its observation that that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.
However, the order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved, it added. It also remarked that in matter of other writ, the High Court has not dealt with and considered the same on merits independently.
"The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that once he is removed from service there is no question of considering his case for promotion. However, it is required to be noted that the appellant claimed the promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when his juniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. From the material available
on record, it appears that in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years 1999, 2000 to 2003, 2004. The said exercise was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore, so far as the Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the same is required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits."
In view of the above the Court modified the impugned judgement to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
The appellant was entitled to all the benefits which may be available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. As far as the present writ is considered, the Court noted that the High Court has not decided the said writ petition on merits, and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments