Summary
The Court restored the disciplinary penalty imposed on a bank field officer. Evidence supported the charges of failing to conduct periodic inspections and negligently failing to secure an offered equitable mortgage. The High Court had exceeded the limits of judicial review by reappraising that evidence; failure of some other charges did not invalidate a penalty sustainable on the proved charges.
Issues
- Whether the disciplinary findings were unsupported by evidence or perverse.
- Whether the penalty could survive failure of some charges and whether it was disproportionate.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review concerned the legality of the disciplinary decision-making process and the existence of supporting evidence, rather than an appellate reassessment of the evidence. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
Held
- The Bank could not infer non-submission of control forms merely from the officer’s failure to produce them when files might have gone missing. The finding concerning lending outside the operational area was also unsupported because breach of the permitted exceptions had not been shown. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The inspection charge was supported by witness testimony and inspection records produced at the defence’s request. Having undertaken to respond after examining those records, the officer did not rebut the charge. The evidentiary onus could shift in light of the charge and the explanation; this was not a finding based merely on personal knowledge or missing records. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Evidence showed that the field officer, in consultation with the branch manager, had to stipulate collateral security. Failure to include the offered equitable mortgage in the recommendation supported the negligence finding; the absence of that stipulation in the sanction and a claim of later completion did not justify substituting the disciplinary authority’s view. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- A writ court does not sit in appeal over departmental findings supported by evidence. The findings on inspections and collateral security were neither perverse nor unsupported, so the High Court’s interference exceeded its reviewing jurisdiction. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- A penalty lawfully sustainable on proved, severable charges need not be set aside because other charges fail. Here reduction of basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I and treatment of the suspension period as suspension did not shock the conscience; absence of an allegation of financial loss or misappropriation did not make that penalty disproportionate. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed. Single Judge and Division Bench judgments set aside; employee’s writ petition dismissed. Penalty imposed by the appointing authority and affirmed on departmental appeal maintained. No costs.