Summary
A bank messenger was found in a departmental inquiry to have acted as a middleman in loan sanctions for illegal gratification; the Appellate Authority reduced his dismissal to removal from service with superannuation benefits, but the High Court set the punishment aside and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappreciating evidence in a case where natural justice was followed and findings rested on the preponderance of probabilities, and restored the removal order.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in judicial review of departmental proceedings, could set aside the punishment by reappreciating the evidence and holding the findings to be based on conjectures and surmises.
- Whether the respondent was wrongly singled out as a Class IV employee without power to sanction loans while other officers went unpunished.
- Whether the Disciplinary Authority was required to record detailed reasons when accepting the Inquiry Officer's report.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe power of judicial review over disciplinary inquiries is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice; it is not an adjudication on merits as an appellate authority (SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava applied). The Single Bench exceeded these limits. (¶¶ 13, 14.1, 15)
Held
- Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226, 32 or 136 is confined to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of the principles of natural justice; the court does not sit as an appellate authority over the merits. (¶ 13)
- Where the disciplinary authority accepts the findings of the inquiry officer, no detailed reasons are required in the order imposing punishment (Boloram Bordoloi followed). (¶ 13.1)
- It was not the respondent's case that natural justice was violated; he participated in the inquiry with a defence counsel and cross-examined witnesses. Five loanees deposed that they paid money to him to get loans sanctioned despite deficient documents, and the Field Officer stated that all the accounts were irregular. Findings in a departmental inquiry rest on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, so the Single Bench's view that they were based on conjectures and surmises could not be sustained. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 14, 14.1)
- The 'scapegoat' reasoning was wrong because the Branch Manager and the Field Officer against whom allegations were levelled along with the respondent were also removed from service; that the respondent, a Class IV employee, had no power to sanction loans was irrelevant, the proved charge being that he worked as a conduit for getting loans sanctioned. (¶¶ 6, 14.2)
- The respondent's statement before the Disciplinary Authority, claiming innocence but seeking forgiveness for any mistake and pleading his family circumstances, indirectly admitted what he had done; the Appellate Authority had already shown leniency by reducing dismissal to removal with superannuation benefits. (¶¶ 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 14.3)
- The Division Bench erred in extracting the initial show cause notice instead of the chargesheet, in not touching the merits and in deciding only the maintainability objection; its order and that of the Single Bench were set aside and the Appellate Authority's order of removal from service with superannuation benefits restored. (¶¶ 12, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders of the Single Bench and Division Bench of the High Court set aside; Appellate Authority's order dated 07.12.2012 imposing removal from service with superannuation benefits restored; no order as to costs.