Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Lal vs The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank Through ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1039 of 2022
-----
Manoj Kumar Lal, S/o Nageshwar Das, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, P.O., P.S. and
District Deoghar, Jharkhand
------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank through its Chairman at Head Office, Zila
Parishad Market Complex, third floor, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. P.S. and District
Ranchi
2.The General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank at Head Office, Zila
Parishad Market Complex, third floor, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. P.S. and District
Ranchi
3.The Regional Manager, Godda, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, at Regional
Office, Guljarbagh, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda
4.The Branch Manager, Jhikitia Branch, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, P.O. P.S.
and District Ranchi
5.The Branch Manager, Paderkola Branch, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, P.O.
P.S. and District Ranchi ------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate
.........
06/ 21.01.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 03.12.2020 by which he has
been dismissed from service and also the Appellate order dated
24.03.2021.
3. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner was the Cashier of the Bank. A Cashier of Bank has to
maintain utmost integrity and honesty. Further, Bank as a trustee
holds the money of the depositors. Any breach of honesty and
integrity of the official of the Bank will amount to loss of confidence
on the Bank by the depositors which is fatal. There cannot be any
compromise with honesty and integrity.
4. In this case, the allegation against this petitioner is that he being
the cashier has defalcated amount from the account of the
complainant. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he later on
repaid the said defalcated amount. Repaying the same suggest
admission on the part of the petitioner that he has defalcated the
amount. The Inquiry Officer found the charge of defalcation against
the petitioner to be proved, thus the Disciplinary Authority has
imposed punishment of dismissal.
5. The Appellate Authority also considered all the aspects and has
affirmed the order of punishment.
6. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while considering a departmental proceeding is
very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director
General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus
Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at
paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court
cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence,
which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High
Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a
departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled
that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authority
has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings
are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules
provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court
can interfere. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:-
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of
the State of Rajasthan and others vs. Bhupendra Singh, reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 1908 has reiterated the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S. Sree Rama Rao (Supra) and held that
the High Court should not reappreciate evidence lead in the
departmental enquiry.
Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof
has held as under:-
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional
courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits
of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure
fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings
held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the
rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry 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 or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up,
the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of
correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
Further, in paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar
Srivastava) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 136 of the Constitution, the Court
will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of mala fides 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 those 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.
7. I find no procedural illegality nor any irregularity in the
departmental proceeding. The punishment also cannot be said to be
too harsh. It is not disproportionate to the charge which has been
proved.
8. Thus, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
A.F.R.
