Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Nagaraju, Orissa State vs Dy. General Managercumappellate ... on 16 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.12622 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated
27.11.2011 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal-Cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.L.C. No.11 of 2005, seeks a
direction to set aside the orders dt.27.11.2002 and 31.03.2003
passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dt.01.07.2004
passed by the 1st respondent and seeks a consequential
direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential
benefits.
2. The averments made in the writ petition, in brief, are that
the petitioner was working as an Assistant (Accounts and
Typing) with the 3rd respondent. On the grounds of
committing monetary irregularities, the 3rd respondent
suspended the petitioner on 20.05.1999 and filed a complaint
before the Station House Officer, Dhone Police Station, for the
offence under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C., and the same
was registered as Crime No.69 of 2000. The police, after a
thorough investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial
//2//
Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, and the said charge sheet
was numbered as C.C. No.99 of 2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
view of the disciplinary action and procedure for workmen staff
(memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002), adopted by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the departmental proceedings
pending against the petitioner are to be stayed. The petitioner
claims that vide judgment dt.28.06.2004 in C.C. No.99 of 2001
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, he
was acquitted. However, pending trial, the 2nd respondent
discharged the petitioner from service. The petitioner claims
that the respondents had proceeded with the departmental
proceedings simultaneously along with the criminal case. The
2nd respondent concluded the departmental proceedings and
passed orders of termination.
4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25331 of 2002 challenging
the discharge proceedings dated 27.11.2002. However,
pending disposal of the writ petition, the 1st respondent
confirmed the orders of discharge proceedings. The petitioner
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order
of discharge and consequent order of the 1st respondent. The
//3//
appellate authority rejected the case of the petitioner vide
orders dated 01.07.2004. The petitioner filed I.D.L.C. No.11 of
2005 before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 27.07.2011.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
acquittal in the criminal case, departmental proceedings and
criminal proceedings were simultaneously proceeded with.
The Labour Court Award dated 27.07.2011 dismissed the case
of the petitioner. The petitioner, after the lapse of three years,
filed the Review Petition before the Labour Court, which was
rejected.
6. The learned standing counsel for the respondent/bank
submits that the petitioner was involved in acts of misconduct
and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the
respondent/bank. The enquiry officer found the petitioner
guilty of misappropriation of public money. As such, the action
taken against the petitioner is in the interest of the bank not
only in the interest of the bank, but also in the interest of the
public.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat 1 and submits that the
1 AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2129
//4//
departmental proceedings and the criminal case initiated
against the petitioner are on the same set of facts and the
evidence adduced is also the same. As such, the petitioner
ought to be extended the benefit of acquittal in the criminal
case. However, the respondents, based on the same set of
evidence, have found the petitioner guilty and punished him
by removing the petitioner from service.
8. The petitioner has tried to establish that the evidence
collected during the course of disciplinary enquiry and the
evidence adduced before the criminal court are one and the
same. Even as seen from the list of witnesses examined before
the trial court in C.C. No.99 of 2001, the list of witnesses does
not match with those examined before the disciplinary
enquiry. As such, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in G.M.Tank's case is not applicable to the present set
of facts of the case.
9. The law on the aspect of judicial review is settled in the
following judgments. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited 2 ,
Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
2 (2014) 9 SCC 263
//5//
Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad 3 , Disciplinary Authority - Cum -
Regional Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik4,
Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh &
Others5. In all these Judgments the legal position with respect
to exercising the power of Judicial Review is settled. Unless
and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which would
shock the conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the discretion
can be exercised. It may not matter whether there was no loss
that resulted from the acts of the charged officer.
10. In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala
Suryanarayana6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that
strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental
enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the
allegation against the delinquent officer must be established
by such evidence acting upon which reasonable person acting
reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding
upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent
officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of the judicial
(2010) 5 SCC 775
(1996) 9 SCC 69
(1997) 3 SC 657
(1999) 5 SCC 762
//6//
review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at
in the departmental enquiry proceeding 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 finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating
the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority
so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of
India and others Vs. M.Duraisamy Civil Appeal. No.2665
of 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction
of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of
departmental authority is limited. It is observed that it cannot
be set aside in a well-reasoned order only on grounds of
sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that
once it is found that all the procedural requirements have
been complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere with
the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent
employee. It is further observed that the superior courts, only
in some cases, may invoke the doctrine of proportionality;
however, if an employer's decision is found to be within the
//7//
legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked
when the misconduct stands proved.
12. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can
exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is
able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions
carved out by the established law and the various decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
13. On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner
could not place his case for judicial review by this Court on
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioner.
14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date:16.02.2024
KGM
//8//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY
WRIT PETITION No.12622 of 2014
Date:16.02.2024
KGM
