Madras High Court
S.Nandakumar vs The Presiding Officer on 26 March, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.30809/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.30809 OF 2018
S.Nandakumar .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum-Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan
Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The General Manager/Appellate Authority
Indian Bank Head Office/HRM Dept.
No.66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
3. The Asst. General Manager/Disciplinary
Authority, Indian Bank Circle Office
No.510-511, Gandhi Road
Kanchipuram 631 501.
4. The Branch Manager
Indian Bank, Valasaravakkam Branch
Chennai 600 087. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
W.P. No.30809/2018
the 1st respondent herein pertaining to the award passed in I.D. No.31/2012
dated 07.03.2014 holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement was
justified, quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent herein to reinstate
the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other
consequential benefits thereon.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Purushothaman
For Respondent : Mr. P.Raghunathan, for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. for
RR-2 to 4
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the 2nd
respondent/Industrial Tribunal, in I.D. No.28/1989, denying reinstatement and
other attendant benefits to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been
filed challenging the said order.
2. The petitioner was appointed as peon in Mannady Branch of the
bank on 29.11.1984 and, thereafter, transferred to Valasarawakkam Branch
during 2001. While working in the said branch, the petitioner was issued with
a show cause notice by the 3rd respondent on 16.7.2008 making three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
allegations that the petitioner was frequently unauthorisedly absent,
instigating the customers to prefer complaint and was not heeding to the
words of the supers and is disobeying the orders of the superior.
3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice
and not being satisfied, three charges were framed against the petitioner and
enquiry officer was appointed. After affording opportunity to submit oral and
documentary evidence, the enquiry officer filed his report holding the charges
proved against the petitioner. Further explanation was called for from the
petitioner by furnishing the report of the enquiry officer on 13.11.2009 to
which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.11.2009. However, not
being satisfied with the explanation vide 2nd show cause notice dated
19.12.2009, the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner to submit his
explanation as to the proposed punishment to which the petitioner submitted
his explanation on 26.12.2009. Not being satisfied with the explanation
offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment
of withholding of increment for a period of six months for charge No.1 and
compulsory retirement for charge Nos.2 and 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
4. Aggrieved by the said punishment imposed, the petitioner preferred
an appeal to the 2nd respondent, viz., the appellate authority on 27.01.2010,
which was rejected by upholding the punishment vide order dated
13.08.2010. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute in ID No.31/2012.
5. Upon reference of the dispute, the Tribunal took up the reference
and on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and
marked Exs.W-1 to W-22. On the side of the 1st respondent, while no oral
evidence was adduced, Exs.M-1 to M-29 were marked. On the basis of the
oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concurred with the findings
arrived at by the enquiry officer and also upheld the punishment imposed on
the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition has
been preferred by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
request of the petitioner for grant of time was negatived by the enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
officer, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is the further
submission of the learned counsel that the documents and list of witnesses
were marked behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no
assistance was provided to the petitioner and no adequate opportunity was
granted to cross examine the witnesses and the petitioner’s request to
examine the complainants was rejected by the enquiry officer and the
depositions of the witnesses were also not provided to the delinquent. In fine,
it is the submission of the learned counsel that there is glaring violations of
principles of natural justice, which aspect, though placed before the Labour
Court, was not properly considered by the Labour Court resulting in the
confirmation of the order of punishment, which deserves interference at the
hands of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that
the petitioner’s claim that he was not granted enough opportunities to cross
examine the witnesses is wholly erroneous. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the enquiry proceedings were not challenged before the
Tribunal and if really the grievance of no opportunity as claimed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
petitioner been true, the petitioner would have challenged the enquiry
proceedings. However, the petitioner without challenging the enquiry
proceedings, had accepted the findings and filed appeal before the appellate
authority, which clearly show that the claim of violation of principles of
natural justice is an after-thought, woven by the petitioner for the purpose of
enlisting the sympathy of this Court.
8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that all the charges
have been proved before the enquiry officer through proper evidence, which
fact has been appreciated by the appellate authority as also the Tribunal and
this Court, sitting under judicial review, ought not to interfere with the said
findings, unless perversity and arbitrariness is shown. In the present case,
there is no claim of perversity or arbitrariness and the charges having been
proved, this Court shall not interfere with the order of punishment imposed
on the petitioner as confirmed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. In
fine, it is prayed that this Court may dismiss the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
9. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi – Vs - Union of
India, (1995 (6) SCC 749), while dealing with the issue pertaining to the power
of the Court relating to judicial review of the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, held 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
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 reappreciate 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
coextensive 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 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 :
(1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion,
upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. The above view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Principal Secy. Govt. of A.P. - Vs - M. Adinarayana, (2004 (12) SCC 579),
wherein, it has been held as under :-
“23. We have read this charge in the light of allegations in
support thereof. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the
respondent has neither supplied any prior information on the
Government nor did he send any prior intimation to the
Government. By not doing this, he has contravened the
provisions of Rule 9. The Tribunal has also categorically held
that the respondent has not applied for prior information
before he purchased the items from the competent authority
nor he intimated to the competent authority forthwith soon
after the purchase of the several items. Therefore, in our view,
the charged officer has violated Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules
and thus is guilty of misconduct within Rule 2-H (sic) of the
Andhra Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993. In view of
the abovesaid finding we hold that respondent is guilty of both
the charges framed against him within Rule 2 (b) of the
Conduct Rules of 1961 framed under the Amendment Act,
1993.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
* * * * * * *
26. In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the
examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an
appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision
was made. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside
the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for
reasons stated (supra). The order passed by the Government
removing the respondent from service is in order and,
therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant State stands
allowed. Further, there will be no order as to costs.”
12. In Director General of Police, RPF & Ors. - Vs – Rajendra Kumar
Dubey (C.A. No.3820/2020 dated 25.11.20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
adverting to the various decisions of the Apex Court relating to the
interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect
to disciplinary proceedings, including the decision in Chaturvedi's case (supra),
held as under:-
“12.1 ...... It is well settled that the High Court must not act
as an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led
before the enquiry officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with
respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v S.Sree Rama Rao, a three
judge bench of this Court held that the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the
decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry
against a public servant. It is not the function of the High
Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and
arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High
Court may, however interfere where the departmental
authority which has held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of
natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence,
which may reasonably support the conclusion that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the
authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations
and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed 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. If however the enquiry is properly held, the
departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there
is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the
adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a
writ petition.
These principles were further reiterated in the State of
Andhra Pradesh v Chitra Venkata Rao. The jurisdiction to
issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory
jurisdiction. The court exercises the power not as an appellate
court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or
tribunal on the appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is
apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ
court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may be. A writ
can be issued if it is shown that in recording the finding of fact,
the tribunal has erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence. A finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be
challenged on the ground that the 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.
In subsequent decisions of this Court, including Union of
India v. G. Ganayutham, Director General RPF v. Ch. Sai
Babu, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board v T.T. Murali, Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha,
these principles have been consistently followed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in the State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh this Court has summed up
the law in following words :
“33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters,
there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule
of restraint. The second defines when interference is
permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of
judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of
whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily
within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does
not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does
the judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding
of fact by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea
that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient
conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide
by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by
strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings.
The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which
governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but
a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities.
Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying
approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the
spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy – deference
to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding
authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining
discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to
interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no
evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to
consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards
as a perverse determination of fact. Proportionality is an
entrenched feature of our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence
has recognized it for long years in allowing for the authority of
the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are
disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct.
Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between the
banks of these two shores which have been termed as the two
ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere
recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial
review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary
enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level
of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of
the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of
misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not
allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a
disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to
the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the
first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate
guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which
the judges’ craft is in vain.”
In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, this Court held that
the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-
appreciation of the evidence. The High Court would determine
whether : (a) the enquiry is held by the competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations which are extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves
to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f)
the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived
at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held that :
“13.Under Articles 226 / 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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
(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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. From the ratio laid down above, it is implicitly clear that the Courts,
in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot extend the examination to
the correctness of the act of the disciplinary authority, but only limit itself to
the manner in which the decision has been arrived at by the authority and
whether the same is in accordance with law. This Court is to test only the
correctness of the decision arrived at by the authority on the basis of the
evidence before it, which has since been confirmed by the Tribunal and not
proceed with the case as if it is an appeal against the order of punishment.
14. It has been further held in the said decisions that so long as the
enquiry is not defective the Court has to only see whether there was a prima
facie case for dismissal and whether the employer had come to the bona fide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
conclusion that the employee was guilty of misconduct. What is further to be
seen is that the conclusion arrived at by the employer is bona fide as to the
guilt of the employee and that there was no unfair labour practice or
victimization involved and to satisfy itself with regard to the punishment
imposed. However, if the enquiry is found to be defective for any reason, the
Labour Court would also have to consider for itself on the evidence adduced
before it whether the dismissal was justified.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajendra Kumar Dubey's case
(supra), following the ratio laid down in Gunasekaran's case has held that the
High Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, while determining its
scope of interference in a departmental proceedings is only bound to
determine whether (a) the enquiry is held by the competent authority; (b) the
enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there
is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by
some considerations which are extraneous to the evidence and merits of the
case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of
it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary
authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced
the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
16. It is to be stressed that the Court in its power of judicial review does
not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. The disciplinary authority is the
sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive 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. It has been the
consistent view of the Courts that the nature of evidence required in a
disciplinary proceeding is not on the same level as required in a criminal trial,
as in the disciplinary proceedings, the finding is arrived at on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
preponderance of probabilities. In such a scenario, it is not the function of the
High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. If the enquiry is properly held within the
four boundaries of legal necessities, then the departmental authority is the
sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the 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 writ
petition. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be
corrected by a writ court, but not an error of fact, however grave it may be.
High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence
and further the Supreme Court has also codified the circumstances under
which re-appreciation of evidence is permissible.
17. The words of eminent jurist V.R.Krishna Iyer, J., resonates loud,
where His Lordship (as he then was), had stated that “The simple point is, was
there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical
rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way,
sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond
scrutiny”.
18. Keeping the ratio laid down on the subject issue, a careful perusal
of the impugned order in and by which the punishment of compulsory
retirement from service has been confirmed, it reveals that the Tribunal has
browsed through all the documents, which have been filed by the petitioner
as well as the bank while rendering its finding. The Tribunal has made a
categorical recording that the documents filed by the bank clearly proves that
the charges relating to absenteeism, disobedience to the orders of the
superiors and instigating the customers against the bank have clearly been
proved. Though the petitioner claims that there is violation of principles of
nature justice, however, the records speak otherwise and it shows that the
petitioner was provided with the opportunity. Therefore, the claim for
violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
19. In this backdrop, it is to be noted that the charges, which have
been leveled against the petitioner and which have been proved, clearly show
the disinclination of the petitioner to be respectful to his superiors and to
follow the orders of the superiors. Further, the acts of the petitioner in
instigating the customers clearly show the attitude of the petitioner towards
his employer and it is evident that the interests of the employer has been
thrown to the winds by the petitioner. Further, the act of the petitioner in
being absent without proper intimation clearly shows the scant regard and
respect that the petitioner has towards the bank.
20. Though a ground has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner was not permitted to examine certain witnesses, however, such
a stand has not been taken before the Tribunal and, therefore, when the order
of the Tribunal is being tested by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, it
is not open to the petitioner to raise new grounds, which have not been raised
before the Tribunal and, therefore, the said grounds are liable for rejection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
21. The charges having been held to be proved in the enquiry upon
which action has been taken by the 3rd respondent, who had come to the
conclusion that the continuance of the petitioner would definitely result in the
decimation of the stature of the bank in the eyes of the public and, therefore,
the disciplinary authority had taken the decision to punish the petitioner, in
the light of the discussion made above and the materials on record, the said
view cannot be found fault with.
22. The Tribunal, in extenso, has considered all the materials, both
oral and documentary placed before it and also analysed the enquiry report
and had come to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner had committed
the act of delinquency and had concurred with the findings recorded by the
enquiry officer, but had interfered with a portion of the punishment imposed
on the petitioner.
23. It is to be noted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is
of a very grave nature, which not only borders on the working of the bank, but
also the duty of the petitioner and his manner before his superiors. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
case on hand, the petitioner had acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank,
which had given him his livelihood, but without the scantiest regard for the
same, the petitioner had indulged in acts, which had not only brought down
the reputation of the bank, but had brought disrepute to him as well.
24. Now the only question that requires determination is the
proportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the delinquency of the petitioner.
The proportionality of the punishment inflicted on a delinquent vis-à-vis the
charges framed had been considered by the Apex Court in V.S.P. – Vs -
Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008 (5) SCC 569), and it was held as
under:-
“12. While answering the aforesaid question/issue, the
decision of this Court in the case of Goparaju Sri Prabhakara
Hari Babu (supra), on the judicial review and the limited
jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the
order of departmental authority is required to be referred to.
In the said decision, after referring to a catena of judgments of
this Court, it is observed and held by this Court that the
jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the
order of departmental authority is limited. It is observed that
it cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of
sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
once it is found that all the procedural requirements had 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
the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal
parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked
when the misconduct stands proved.”
25. The precedents on the issue of interference with the punishment
imposed has been oft considered by the Courts and it has been the consistent
view of the Courts that it is always within the domain of the disciplinary
authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent,
which should be proportionate to the act of the delinquent. Only when the
punishment is disproportionate and shocking to the conscience, should the
courts interfere in the same in exercise of powers under Article 226. In Prem
Nath Bali – Vs - High Court of Delhi (2015 (16) SCC 415), the Supreme Court
held as under :-
“20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges
leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is
for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment
should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature
and gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer,
entire service record of the delinquent employee and all
relevant factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its
discretion and then imposed the punishment as provided in
the Rules.
21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing
authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or
major) then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes
the punishment. Such power is exercised when the court finds
that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the
punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary
and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges
thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is
found to be in contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in
such cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for
imposing any other punishment as against what was originally
awarded to the delinquent employee by the appointing
authority as per the Rules or may substitute the punishment
by itself instead of remitting to the appointing authority.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court above, it is crystal clear
that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him
is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the
proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in
contravention of the Rules.
27. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner,
as aforesaid, had hampered the functioning of the bank and decimated the
stature of the superiors in the eyes of the general public. Further the act of
frequent absenteeism of the petitioner without intimation, had put the
functioning of the bank in a perilous position and the functioning of the bank
had been impacted. All the above acts put together had resulted in the
disciplinary authority deciding to compulsorily retire the petitioner from the
services of the bank. The gravity of the offence, which has been alleged
against the petitioner, which had been proved, clearly does not eke any
sympathy at the hands of this Court. Any sympathy given to the petitioner
would be a mistaken sympathy, as it would be against the interest of justice
and would be a travesty of justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
28. It should also not be lost sight of that even while punishing the
petitioner, the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration the length
of service put in by the petitioner and had imposed the punishment of
compulsory retirement from service for the allegations levelled under charges
2 and 3 and for stoppage of increment for the allegation under charge No.1,
which punishment relating to charge No.1 has since been set aside by the
Tribunal while confirming the punishment imposed for charges 2 and 3. In
fact, taking a beneficial view insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the 3rd
respondent had compulsorily retired the petitioner, which punishment, by no
stretch, could be termed to be disproportionate shocking the conscience of
this Court. The punishment, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal to be
imposed on the petitioner, both on facts, as well as law, is justified and this
Court does not find any infirmity in the same warranting interference.
29. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and,
accordingly, the same is dismissed confirming the order impugned herein
dated 07.03.2014 passed in I.D. No.31/2012 by the Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
07.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
GLN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
To
The Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. NO.30809 OF 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
____________
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:46:50 pm )
