The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka while setting aside an order of the High Court opined that concerning the scope of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiry, it has been settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of the appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. At the same time, the power of judicial review is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
Facts
The respondent while working as an officiating Manager, committed gross irregularities in discharge of his duties. For the alleged misconduct, he was served with the chargesheet along with the articles of charges/statement of allegations under Regulation 6 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees’(Conduct) Regulations, 1976(“Regulations 1976”).
Procedural History
After the inquiry was conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the Regulations 1976, the inquiry officer finally held the respondent guilty for charge nos. 1,2 and 3 and charge no. 4 was not found to be proved. The disciplinary authority, after affording opportunity of hearing and after compliance of the principles of natural justice, confirmed the finding recorded by the inquiry officer and held the respondent delinquent guilty and imposed punishment on him. On appeal being preferred, the appellate authority while upholding the guilt in reference to charge nos. 1,2 and 3 modified the punishment.
This order came to be challenged by the respondent delinquent in a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the premises as if the appellate authority held the respondent guilty only in reference to charge no. 1 and that is the reason for which the punishment was modified and for charge nos. 2 and 3, the respondent employee was exonerated. The Division Bench set aside the disciplinary proceedings and the order of penalty, which is the subject matter of this challenge in appeal.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have proceeded on an assumption that the appellate authority has not only modified the punishment but has exonerated the respondent employee from charge nos. 2 and 3 which is factually incorrect. The record clearly states that charge nos. 1,2 and 3 which were proved by the inquiry officer, after holding inquiry in terms of the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Regulations 1976, was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority. Thus, the premise on which the Division Bench has proceeded in passing the order impugned is not sustainable.
Respondent: The finding which was recorded by the disciplinary/appellate authority and confirmed at all stages still the punishment, in the given circumstances, which has been inflicted upon him even if examined from the record of inquiry, is not supported by the material on record and consequently the punishment inflicted upon him has been rightly set aside by the High Court.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, while setting aside the impugned judgment, observed that:
“In our considered view, the finding which has been recorded by the inquiry officer in reference to charge nos. 1,2 and 3 is duly supported with the material on record and after revisiting the record of inquiry, has been confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority. At the same time, while upholding the guilt of the respondent delinquent, the appellate authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment. So far as the finding which has been recorded by the High Court in reference to charge no. 1 being vague and unclear, which has deprived the respondent delinquent in submitting reply is concerned, it is factually incorrect. The article of charge no. 1 is clear and specific and leaves no ambiguity in understanding the delinquent in submitting his response. Even it was never the case of the respondent that because of charge no. 1 being vague or unclear, he was unable to submit reply to participate during inquiry. In our considered view, the premises on which the High Court has proceeded even in reference to charge no. 1 is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.”
Case Name: General Manager (Operation-1)/ Appellate Authority, Uco Bank & Ors. vs Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1458 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka
Decided on: 18th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
