Jai Prakash vs Gen. Manager Zonal Office & Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 3237 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

										     A.F.R.
 
Judgment Reserved 
 
                    
 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash
 
Respondent :- Gen. Manager Zonal Office & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Upadhyay,Manish Mishra,Parmanand Sharma,R.K. Maurya,S.K. Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vishnu Pratap,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager and order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy General Manager of Central Bank of India as also order dated 29th September, 2009 passed by the Reviewing Authority/General Manager of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk/cashier in the respondent-bank on 18.2.1980, thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager on 15.10.1990 and he was transferred in different districts. The petitioner was promoted as Bank Manager, Scale-II on 20.8.2001 and transferred to Khandala Branch, Maharashtra.

3. It is stated that on 26th April, 2003, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Office of the respondent-bank alleging that the petitioner had committed acts of misconduct in disbursing loan to several persons. The petitioner sent reply to the same vide letter dated 28th May, 2003 and controverted the allegations made in the memo.

4. It is also stated that on 9th December, 2006, the respondent no.2 sent a memorandum to the petitioner whereby he was informed that the inquiry was proposed against him on the charge of misconduct in respect of disbursement of loan and irregularity in disbursement of loan which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Thereafter, vide order dated 25th January, 2007, the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was appointed.

5. The Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry from 26th March, 2007 to 14th August, 2007 and after completion of inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25th August, 2007. The petitioner filed his representation to the findings of the inquiry report on 29th August, 2007 controverting the charges against him.

6. The Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 5th November, 2007 awarded consolidated penalty of "dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" under the Regulation 4 (j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 5th November, 2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 29th February, 2008, the appeal was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority.

8. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition No.31884 of 2008 which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy by this Court on 08th July, 2008 by observing that the petitioner had a remedy by means of review under the Regulation 18 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition. By detailed order dated 29th December, 2009, the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Reviewing Authority/General Manager. Hence, the present petition.

10. The respondents have opposed the petition by filing a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have denied the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner committed irregularity/misconduct and therefore, the inquiry was initiated. During the inquiry, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and present his case. The report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the Disciplinary Authority and the said report was also communicated to the petitioner. After considering the reply of the petitioner and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order and awarded consolidated penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be disqualification for further employment. The Appellate Authority after considering the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal. Vide order dated 29th September, 2009, the Reviewing Authority dismissed the review application by passing a detailed reasoned order.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the inquiry was not conducted fairly and properly inasmuch as the petitioner was not permitted to peruse the original record. The inquiry is against the procedure laid down in the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that neither proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to adduce defence witnesses nor he was afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the Department and the charges were proved by twisting the material placed on record.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 5th November, 2007 has stated that the petitioner has not caused the financial loss to the bank nor has he misappropriated any funds and punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have passed the order of dismissal in a cryptic manner without considering the defence taken by the petitioner.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the 20 charges framed against the petitioner and vehemently contended that the charges against the petitioner regarding disbursement of loan is not against the loan policy of the bank.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no deliberate irregularity or misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in gross violation of law and procedure prescribed under the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and also in gross violation of natural justice.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were based on evidence available on record. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses adduced by the Department and to adduce his evidence.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order after going through the entire proceeding of inquiry, documents/exhibits of the Bank and after considering the pleas raised by both the parties. The order was passed after application of mind and needs no interference by this Court in the present writ petition by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Before examining the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the charges against the petitioner.

19. The following charges were framed against the petitioner:-

"CHARGE NO 01:

Loans are sanctioned to borrowers from outside the command area of the Branch. The place of activity as well as the place of residence of the borrowers are far away from the Branch. Branches of other banks and our own Bank are functioning at the centers where the borrowers are residing/ activity as proposed. Monitoring of the accounts is very difficult and many accounts turned NPA.

CHARGE NO 02 :

No Dues Certificates from existing Bankers were not obtained/ insisted while sanctioning loans to borrowers from outside the command area of the Branch.

CHARGE NO 3 :

Loan proposals are sanctioned without proper processing. Limits asked are sanctioned without proper assessing and arriving at the maximum permissible Bank Finance (MPBF).

CHARGE NO 4 :

Guarantors are not properly identified. Their financial worth are not ascertained before obtaining their guarantee to the loan accounts. No financial reports are prepared.

CHARGE NO 5 :

Collateral Security is not obtained in most of the loan accounts sanctioned. With creation of primary security not ensured and accounts turning NPA and also the absence of financially sound guarantors, the chances of recovery in these accounts are very poor.

CHARGE NO 6 :

Exceeded lending powers in Housing loan and vehicle loan accounts.

CHARGE NO 7 :

Misuse of funds allowed in Housing loan accounts by sanctioning loan for construction of house. At the time of sanctioning of loans, the construction work is almost completed, still the stage of work completed is not considered while sanctioning loans to (1) Mangilal Jain and (2) Ramesh Giri.

CHARGE NO 8 :

Without any justification Moratorium period allowed in may borrowal accounts, thereby treating otherwise NPA accounts as performing Assets as on 31.03.2004 and avoid reporting the factual position of accounts.

CHARGE NO 9 :

Forgery of guarantor's signature allowed in documents obtained in borrowal accounts- (1) Retnaraj Traders (2) Jeeban Roy (3) J.S. Chavan (4) Dwarika Prasad.

CHARGE NO 10 :

Misuse of funds allowed in loan accounts sanctioned to J S Chavan by accepting quotation from firm owned by the borrower and disbursing the amount by Draft favouring the firm.

CHARGE NO 11 :

Mr. Jai Prakash has altered the documents/allowed to alter the documents after the same are executed. After the alterations, the documents have become null and void.

CHARGE NO 12 :

Terms of sanctions are not complied before the disbursement of loan sanctioned in borrowal accounts- (1) Mary D' Silva (2) Dwarika Prasad Vishwakarma (3) Parshwanath Medical & General Stores (4) R B Gaikwad.

CHARGE NO 13 :

Lending norms violated while financing to (1) M/S IIBM (Proprietor: Rajashree Vijay Kumar Malpure) and (2) Vijaykumar S. Malpure.

CHARGE NO 14 :

Mr. Jai Prakash exceeded his powers and purchased cheques in the accounts of the customers viz. (1) Surinder Singh (2) IIBM (3) Pariwar Selections.

CHARGE NO 15 :

The Term Loan account of Micron Systems was recalled on 09.12.2003. Another two Cash Credit accounts, M/S Pariwar Selections and Gandiya Rice Corner were recalled on 23.03.2004. Without any recovery or written commitment from the account holders after the date of recall, the accounts were reviewed on 28.03.2004. The accounts were reviewed to avoid reporting as NPA accounts as 31.03.2004. All the three accounts turned NPA subsequently.

CHARGE NO 16 :

Heavy cash withdrawals allowed in Cash Credit accounts without verifying the genuineness of the transactions. Direct cash payments, through saving accounts of the borrowers allowed in Term Loan accounts.

CHARGE NO 17 :

Installments in Term Loan accounts are released without obtaining demand letter from the accounts holders. Loan amount is released without verifying the progress of work done by the builders.

CHARGE NO 18 :

No applications are obtained while sanctioning Cash Credit Limits to borrowers.

CHARGE NO 19 :

Loans under Centbuy are given for purchase of items of personal use. Mr. Jai Prakash sanctioned loan to Mr. PM Bafna for purchase of close circuit TV for business purpose, under Centbuy.

CHARGE NO 20 :

The landing powers of Mr. Jai Prakash were withdrawn w.e.f. 24.01.2003 and he was instructed not to affect any further disbursement in loans sanctioned and pending for disbursement. However, Mr. Jai Prakash disbursed Rs. 3.00 lacs to M/S Synochem on 20.05.2004 through their current account and another Rs. 50,000/- was disbursed to Mr. P.B. Kumbhare in his Housing Loan account through his saving account on 29.05.2004, the date on which he got relieved from Khandala Branch."

20. Charge No.1 related to the sanction of loans to the borrowers outside the service area of the branch. In support of charge no.1 as many as 26 instances were cited. It is not necessary to refer all these instances, it will be sufficient to mention that in all these cases, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had sanctioned loans to the borrowers from outside the command of the branch. The place of activities and place of residence of the borrowers were far away from the branch. Branches of other banks and the respondent bank are functioning at the centers where the borrowers were residing/activity as proposed and the monitoring of the accounts is very difficult and many accounts turned NPA. The charge no.1 was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to four lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

21. Charge no.2 related to non-obtaining of no dues certificates from the local banks and existing bankers while sanctioning loan to the borrowers, who were outside the command area of the branch. In this charge also 8 instances were cited. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner had sanctioned loans to the borrowers without insisting and obtaining no dues certificates from the existing bankers and the same was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to three lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

22. Charge no. 3 related to sanctioning of loan proposals without proper processing and the limits were sanctioned without properly assessing and arriving at the maximum permissible Bank finance. Similarly, in respect of this charge, numbers of instances were cited. The same was proved against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to five lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

23. The Enquiry Officer found charge no.4 to be proved which speaks of guarantee obtained in the borrowal accounts, the guarantors were not properly identified and their financial worth were not ascertained before obtaining the guarantee and no financial reports were prepared. The Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

24. Charge no.5 stated that the petitioner sanctioned loan to the borrowers without obtaining any collateral security. In support of this charge, 15 instances were cited. The Enquiry Officer found it proved that the petitioner sanctioned loans to the borrowers without obtaining any collateral security. The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.

25. Charge no.6 speaks of the petitioner sanctioning the loan beyond his powers. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner sanctioned loans to the borrowers without having lending/sanctioning powers as per CO guidelines. The same was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to four lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

26. Charge no.7 related to misuse of funds in housing loan accounts by sanctioning loans for construction of house to Sri Mangi Lal Jain and Sri Ramesh Giri whereas at the time of sanctioning loan, the construction work was almost completed. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner allowed the misuse of the loan amounts in housing loan accounts for construction of house, however, at the time of sanctioning loan, the construction work was almost completed and the stage of work completed was not considered while sanctioning loans to both the said persons. The same was proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reduction to five lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

27. Charge no.8 speaks of allowing moratorium period in many borrowal accounts without any justification and thereby treating otherwise NPA accounts as performing assets as on 31.3.2004 and avoid reporting the factual position of accounts. In support of this charge, as many as 15 instances were cited. The Enquiry Officer found the same to be proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

28. Charge no.9 related to forging signatures in the guarantees forms in respect of 4 accounts. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner allowed using forged signatures of the guarantors on the guarantee letters at the time of the executions of the same in the borrowal accounts and held the charge no.9 was proved. The Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

29. Charge no.10 related to the sanction of loan to Mr. J.S. Chavan for sale of ceramic tiles and the quotations were obtained from the firm owned by the borrower himself. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner has accommodated the borrower while allowing the loan to Mr. J.S. Chavan, the quotations obtained is from the firm owned by the borrower himself and the charge was found proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

30. Charge No.11 related to the alterations made in the registered mortgage documents to suit the requirement of the borrowers. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner accommodated the borrower, namely, M/s Pariwar Selections by making alterations in the registered mortgage documents after executing them, to suit the requirement of the borrower and the same was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.

31. Charge No.12 stated that the petitioner did not comply with the terms of sanction stipulated by him in the Sanction advices. In support of this charge, 4 instances were cited. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of sanction stipulated by him in the Sanction advices in respect of borrowal accounts of Mrs. Mary D'Silva, M/s Parshwanath Medical & Gen. Stores and Shri R.B. Gaikwad etc. and the charge was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

32. Charge No.13 related to violating the norms for lending loans. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had violated the lending norms by sanctioning loan to trust a/c IIBM and the trustee of the firm of Sri V.S. Malpure though, he was not having lending norms as per lending policy. The same was proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

33. Charge No.14 related to exceeding lending powers, purchasing cheques from three customers mentioned in the charge sheet and did not report the matter to the Regional Office. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner violated the lending norms and discounted cheques of the customers in their newly opened accounts which was against the lending policy. The same was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

34. Charge No.15 stated that after issuing recall notices to three cash credit accounts, the same were renewed to show them as standard assets. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner violated the lending norms by renewing the limits after issuing the recall notices to cash credit borrowers, namely, M/s Micron Systems, M/s Pariwar Selections and M/s Gadiya Rice Corner and held the same was proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reduction to five lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the abovesaid period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

35. Charge No.16 related to allowing heavy cash withdrawals in the cash credit accounts without verifying the genuineness of the said transactions. In support of this charge, 8 instances were cited. The Enquiry Officer found the charge No.16 was proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

36. Charge No.17 related to sanctioning the housing loans to thirteen accounts and the loan instalments were released without verifying the progress of work done and no demand letter was obtained from the borrowers for release of the instalments. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner released the housing loans in 13 accounts without verifying the progress of work done and also no demand letter was obtained from the borrowers requesting for the release of the instalments and the same was proved and the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to three lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

37. The Enquiry Officer found charge no.18 to be proved which was related to the sanctioning of the cash credit limit without obtaining any written requests from M/s Gadiya Rice Corner, M/s Rantanram Traders, M/s Parshwanath Medical & General Stores and M/s Micron Systems, consequently the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

38. The Enquiry Officer found charge no.19 to be proved which was related to sanctioning the loan under Centbuy Scheme for the business purpose to the proprietor of M/s Pariwar Selections. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of reduction to one lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 1 year with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

39. The Enquiry Officer found charge No.20 to be proved which related to sanctioning cash credit facilities and disbursing loans in violation of norms and procedure for granting the said facilities. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner disbursed the loans ignoring the specific instructions of the Regional Office that his lending powers were withdrawn with immediate effect and he should not disburse any loan or part of any proposal presently sanctioned by him but pending for disbursement, either partially or fully without prior sanction from Regional Office and the same was found proved and the Disciplinary Authority was awarded punishment of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.

40. Thus, all the 20 charges have been found proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, thus awarded the petitioner a consolidated penalty of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" under Regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

41. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority held that on consideration of the inquiry records, facts and circumstances of the case, the findings and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is based on evidence brought on record and the Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Disciplinary Authority and found no justification to interfere with the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.

42. The Reviewing Authority found that charges no.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were established in full while the charge no.1 was found partly proved and charge no.9 was found not proved. The Reviewing Authority confirmed a consolidated penalty of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" under Regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

43. We have given our anxious thought to the rival submission made by Sri Parmanand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent. We have also carefully perused the material on record.

44. The first and foremost question which comes for consideration is the scope of judicial review in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

45. It is settled law that so far as the departmental inquiry and action of the authorities in dismissing the service of an incumbent is concerned, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process. Scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness of a decision on a question of fact. In such cases, the court has to examine and determine: (1) whether the inquiry was held by the competent authority; (2) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (3) whether the findings or conclusions arrived at by the competent authority are based on some evidence and the authority has power and jurisdiction to reach at a conclusion.

46. The technical rules of Evidence Act or evidence as defined in the said Act, are not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. The adequacy of evidence or reliability of the evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before this court. The doctrine of "proof and doubt" has no application in the disciplinary proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the charge officer has committed misconduct.

47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Another", (1995) 6 SCC 749 observed as under;

"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

48. This issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of "H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others Vs. Gopi Nath & Sons and Others", 1992 Supp.2 SCC 312. In the said judgment, it was held as under;

"8. ............... Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."

49. Again, while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the departmental inquiries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of U.P. And another Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha", 2009 (8) SCC 310 it was observed as follows:-

"15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re- appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. In the instant case, the High Court fell into grave error in scanning the evidence as if it was a court of appeal. The approach of the High Court in consideration of the matter suffers from manifest error and, in our thoughtful consideration, the matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court in accordance with law. On this short ground, we send the matter back to the High Court."

50. In another case titled as "State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao", (1975) 2 SCC 557 the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review, held as under;

"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao(1). First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him,. the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic Tribunal o Inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry invalid. The High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reason ably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High A Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.

22. ......................

23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an Appellate Court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal as a result of the. appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of facts however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a Tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorary. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (3).

24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, re-assessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do."

51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. Vs. R. Periyasami", (2015) 3 SCC 101 also observed that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the findings of facts may be set aside by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

52. In the instant case, the lapses/irregularities committed by the petitioner are serious in nature and indicates gross negligence on his part. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence on record and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Reviewing Authority, after considering the documents and evidence on record, passed a detailed reasoned order. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention the relevant regulation.

53. Regulation 24 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 defines the acts of misconduct in the following manner;

"24. Acts of misconduct: A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Central Bank of India Officer Employees'(Conduct) Regulations, 1976."

54. Regulation 3 of the said Regulations may also be noticed:

"3(1). Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is uncoming of a bank officer.

(2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations.

(3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior."

(4) Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority."

55. On perusal of the Regulation 3, it is manifestly clear that every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Breach of Regulation 3 is "misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 24.

56. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the defaulters and customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are indispensable requirements expected in every officer of the bank.

57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the word "misconduct" in the light of the Regulation 24 read with Regulation 3 in the case of "Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager and others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik", (1996) 9 SCC 69 it was held that no defence is available to the employee of the bank to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in the case, when the employee acted without authority. In the said case, it was held as under;

"7. It may be mentioned that in the memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two regulations are said to have been violated by the respondent. Regulation 3 requires every officer/employee of the Bank to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. It requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him, Breach of Regulation 3 is "misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 24. The findings of the Enquiry Officer which have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and which have not been disturbed by the High Court, clearly show that in number of instances the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques involving substantial amounts beyond his authority. True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted from such acts. It is also true that in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other instances, the funds of the Bank have been placed in jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading over a sufficiently long period and involving a large number of transactions. In the case of a Bank - for that matter, in the case of any other organization - every officer/employee is supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If each officer/ employee is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will disappear; the functioning of the Bank would become chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the Bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No organization, more particularly, a Bank can function properly and effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting beyond authority - that too a course of conduct spread over a sufficiently long period and involving innumerable instances - is by itself a misconduct. Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such adventures are not given to the employees of Banks which deal with public funds. If what we hear about the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very discipline of an organization and more particularly, a Bank is dependent upon each of its employees and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3. It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case there are findings that several advances and over-drawals allowed by the respondent beyond his authority have become sticky and irrecoverable. Just because, similar acts have fetched some profit - huge profit, as the High Court characterizes it - they are no less blameworthy. It is wrong to characterize them as errors of judgment. It is not suggested that the respondent being a Class-I officer was not aware of the limits of his authority or of his powers. Indeed, Charge No.9, which has been held established in full is to the effect that inspite of instructions by the Regional Office to stop such practice, the respondent continued to indulge in such acts. The Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that the respondent did flout the said instructions and has thereby committed an act of disobedience of lawful orders. Similarly, Charge No.8, which has also been established in full is to the effect that inspite of reminders, the respondent did not submit "Control Returns" to the Regional Office. We fail to understand how could all this be characterized as errors of judgment and not as misconduct as defined by the regulations. We are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a clear error in holding that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent does not amount to misconduct or that it does not constitute violation of Regulations 3 and 24."

58. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly, a bank is dependent upon all the officer's acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct.

59. In this case, the charges against the petitioner were not casual in nature and were serious. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks conscience of the court, there is no scope for interference. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. When a court finds that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion.

60. Upon cumulative reflection of the law and the record present before this court, it is but logical to conclude that the charges imposed upon the petitioner which were found proved as have already been discussed above, are undoubtedly grave and serious in nature. The acts/doings of the petitioner fall in the definition of misconduct. The defences adopted by the petitioner are highly unconvincing. Further more, a thorough consideration of the entire gambit of facts reveal no violation of the enquiry procedure on the principles of natural justice. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority.

61. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

62. There is no order as to costs.

	(V.P. Vaish, J.)       (Manoj Misra, J.)
 
Order Date :- 12th Oct., 2018
 
Vivek Kr.