The Division judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that it is no longer res integra that the Writ Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence like the Appellate Authority.
The jurisdiction of the Court is very limited in this regard. Where it is found that the enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of the principle of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, finding based on without evidence, or that the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man, or there is the disproportionate imposition of punishment, the Writ Court can interfere.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Appellant, who worked as an employee in Tripura Gramin Bank [in short, the TGB], Bishalgar Branch. The primary accusation was the creation of erroneous vouchers under several names and accounts, resulting in financial instability for the bank and perhaps leading to fraud. The disciplinary authority included additional charges against which the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court directed the inquiring authority to first complete the proceeding with respect to the charges framed earlier. The defense assistant filed a petition with the inquiry officer during the pendency of the proceeding, requesting the supply of a total of 26[twenty-six] Nos. of documents, including a copy of the user ID register [SL. No.25] and a sealed envelope containing the appellant's password [Sl. No.26], both of which are purportedly in the Branch Manager's possession. Of the aforementioned 26 [twenty] documents, the appellant received 2 [two] of them. The Bank maintained that the remaining documents were not made available to them. Then, the High Court disposed of the matter. Thereafter, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged by way of filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Disciplinary Authority informed the appellant once more of its thorough conclusion in support of the penalty. The appellant filed an appeal against the decision in question with the Appellate Authority, and the latter dismissed the appeal in question with a detailed ruling that was sent to the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant filed a writ petition before the learned single-judge bench which was dismissed and resulted in the present petition.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the non-supply of the documents has caused serious prejudice to the appellant and there is now substantial doubt regarding the allegations made against the appellant in the disciplinary procedure due to the withholding of the user ID registration and password for the user ID assigned to the appellant.
The Appellant relied upon the judgment titled M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the allegations against the appellant were properly proven based on the statements of the management witnesses and the management evidence, and the investigating officer fully followed all the necessary procedures, allowing the appellant a full chance to defend his case.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is no longer res integra that the Writ Court, in the exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappraise the evidence in the same way as the Appellate Authority is no longer res integra. In this sense, the Court's authority is severely constrained. The Writ Court may step in when it is determined that the investigation was tainted by the failure to uphold the principle of natural justice, the denial of a reasonable opportunity, the making of decisions without sufficient evidence, the conclusions that were recorded being so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have come to those conclusions, or the disproportionate application of punishment.
It was furthermore observed that a writ of certiorari may be issued if the disciplinary authority's finding, after taking into account the evidence, is erroneous, manifestly incorrect on the face of the record, or not supported by any evidence at all.
It was noted that merely on non-production of any such user ID register or any envelope containing the password cannot dilute the evidential value of other exhibits, as was proved by the bank.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that no perversity or any patent error on the face of the record could be shown by the appellant to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority and affirmed the decision of the single judge bench in rejecting the writ petition.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case title: Sri Satyendra Bhattacharya Vs The Tripura Gramin Bank
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
Case No.: W.A. No.35 of 2020
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. S. Dey, Adv. Mr. S. Datta, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. A. Roy Barman, Adv. Mr. S.D. Gupta, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
