298.
(SC) 05-01-2021
A. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- 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.
(Para 23)
B. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary action against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- 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 -- 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.
(Para 25)
C. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(Para 26)
D. Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Power of Disciplinary authority to differ -- Where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
(Para 27)
E. Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Evidence required -- Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings -- However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee -- Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
(Para 28)
F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Disciplinary enquiries against employee – Judicial review – Scope of -- Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
(Para 29)
F. Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Dismissal of bank employee -- Judicial review – Scope of -- Chargesheet 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 – In enquiry charge no.1 not proved and charges nos. 2-7 stood proved against the delinquent respondent -- It was later revisited by the disciplinary authority and apart from the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1, the disciplinary authority accepted the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in his report for charge nos. 2 to 7 and with its prima facie opinion, called upon the respondent to submit his explanation and after affording an opportunity of hearing and expressed its brief reasons while upholding the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and confirmed its opinion of inflicting penalty of dismissal from service – Appellate authority after assigning reasons confirmed the finding of fact in upholding the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent – Held;
-- if the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency.
-- The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that even after the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of penalty, the Court may not exercise its power of judicial review.
-- In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee -- It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired – For this additional reason, Court opined that High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of employee.
(Para 30-43)
