Summary
The Court upheld the setting aside of a bank officer’s dismissal for alleged loan and subsidy misappropriation. Scrutiny of the enquiry showed no evidence adequately linking him to the charges; an unproved confession by others could not establish his complicity. Limited judicial review permitted examining the record for absence of evidence and perversity. The bank was directed to calculate and pay consequential and terminal benefits within three months.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded judicial review by scrutinising the disciplinary record for absence of evidence.
- Whether the material relied on could establish the employee’s complicity in the alleged misconduct.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaLimited scrutiny of the disciplinary record was necessary to assess no-evidence findings and perversity, without conducting an appellate reappraisal. (¶ 16-20)
Held
- Disciplinary findings are ordinarily entrusted to the competent authority, and strict Evidence Act rules do not apply. Review nevertheless remains available for lack of evidence, relevant material ignored, extraneous material considered, procedural unfairness or conclusions no reasonable decision-maker could reach. Some scrutiny of the record is necessary to apply those tests. (¶ 16-20)
- The bank’s own evidence attributed primary responsibility for the subsidy register to the cashier. The challenged identification evidence and absence of material linking the respondent to the borrowers’ applications did not establish his complicity merely through suspicion. (¶ 21)
- The purported confession was by other persons, not the respondent; neither its makers nor anyone who heard them testified to it, and it was not exhibited. In those circumstances it could not establish the respondent’s guilt. Cases supported by testimony concerning the charged employee’s own admission were distinguishable. (¶ 22-23)
- There was no evidence establishing removal of records or the alleged misappropriation through transfers. Past minor misconduct had influenced the disciplinary authority despite the lack of evidence on the present charges. The dismissal could not stand. (¶ 24-25)
- The appeal was dismissed without costs. The bank was to deem service reinstated and calculate and pay salary arrears, applicable pay increases, increments and consequential and terminal benefits within three months, fixing pension if admissible under its regulations. (¶ 26)
Result
Bank’s appeal dismissed without costs; deemed reinstatement and calculation and payment of consequential and terminal benefits directed within three months, including pension fixation if admissible.