On 5th Jan’2020, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy General Manager and Ors. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and held that the 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.

Factual Background of the Case

The appellant is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under the   SBI Act,1955.   The respondent joined service as a Cashier/Clerk in Mumfordganj Branch Allahabad. While on duty, misconduct was committed by him for which he was placed under suspension in the first place by order dated 14th August 1995   and   later   the charge-sheet dated   11th  April, 1996   was served upon him detailing seven charges of misappropriation of funds which he had committed in discharge of his duties as an employee of the Bank.

The self¬same misappropriation of bank’s money by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the Branch where he was posted, a criminal case was also instituted against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120¬B IPC and Section   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988.

Enquiry by the Enquiry Officer (Appointed by the Competent Authority)

The Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report stated that, “the respondent had participated in the disciplinary enquiry and   Charge No.1 was not proved, at the same time, held the Charge Nos. 2 to 7 proved against him.”

Further, it has been noticed by the enquiry officer that respondent delinquent stated in the course of enquiry   that   he   neither   wants   to   say   anything   about   the prosecution documents nor he wants to ask any question to the presenting officer and did not produce any documentary evidence to   substantiate   his   statement   in   defence   regarding   fictitious credits in his account which was the allegation against him for misappropriation of funds of the Bank and the fact remains that all the allegations levelled against the respondent were supported with the documentary evidence duly audited by the Bank

Disciplinary Authority

The   disciplinary   authority took pains to revisit the report of enquiry and while concurring with the finding of fact in reference   to   Charge   Nos.2-7   proved   by   the   enquiry   officer disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer as of charge no. 1 and assigning his reasons of disagreement held the Charge No.1 to be proved and served the copy of enquiry report dated 29th June, 1999 along with his finding of disagreement(for charge no. 1) with the prima facie opinion based on the record of enquiry   to the respondent delinquent   calling   for   his   written explanation. 

Departmental Appeal examined by the Appellate Authority

The   departmental   appeal   was   examined   by the   appellate authority and taking note of the record of enquiry, the appellate  authority noticed the alleged objections raised by the respondent being so vague with no supporting foundation confirmed   the   punishment   of   dismissal which was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition before the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   filed   at   the   instance   of   the respondent delinquent.

High Court

The High Court has passed a detailed judgment but the focus was throughout on charge no.1 which was not found to be proved by the enquiry officer in his report but the disciplinary authority recorded its note of disagreement which according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court has caused great prejudice and that apart, the disciplinary/appellate authority has passed a non¬speaking order which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   its   impugned judgment.

SUPREME COURT

Appellant Contentions

The Appellant in its submission stated that the  fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent delinquent in   the   course   of   enquiry   and   it   was   never   the   case   of   the respondent   that   either   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the disciplinary rules have not been followed or the enquiry was held by the authority who was not competent under law or the findings or conclusions which have been arrived at by the enquiry 12 Officer in his report and confirmed by the disciplinary authority are  not   supported  by  the   evidence   on   record  or   there   was  a violation   of   the  principles  of  natural  justice.   

Further, the Appellant submitted that the   plea   raised   by   the   respondent   holding   that   the disciplinary authority has passed a non¬speaking order without application of mind lacks merit and is not substantiated from the material on record.

Respondent Contentions

Respondent in its contention stated that the disciplinary authority reiterated the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his   report   and   failed   to   examine   the   record   of   enquiry independently and rejected the written objections raised by the respondent cursorily and inflicted penalty upon him of dismissal from   service   by   passing   a   non-speaking   order   without   due application of mind has been rightly interfered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court, in its findings, stated that the

  1. enquiry officer has noticed   in   his   enquiry   report   that   the   respondent   delinquent neither produced any document nor witness in self¬defence.  At the same time, he never requested to allow him to defend him by a   representative   of   his   choice.
  2. The   departmental   appeal   which   was   preferred   by   the respondent employee was revisited by the appellate authority and taking note of the objections, all have been separately dealt with by the appellate authority
  3. The 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
  4. The 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.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal set aside the Judgment by the High Court.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Rishab Bhandari