The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagrathna, while hearing an appeal, opined that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.
Facts
The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer at a Branch of the Respondent (Bank). He put in 28 years of service. While he was serving, a complaint was made against the appellant by one borrower of the Bank alleging that the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/. Four other persons also made the complaint against the appellant. The Chairman of the Bank transferred him to another branch of the Bank, during pendency of the inquiry. A show cause notice was issued seeking his explanation. The appellant stated therein that the allegations in the complaint are baseless. He also made allegations of malice and bias against the Chairman of the Bank. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. A chargesheet was issued to him and charges were framed.
Procedural History
The Bank decided to initiate an inquiry for a major punishment. After considering the inquiry report and giving opportunity to the appellant, the disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present writ petition before the High Court. During its pendency, the appellant also preferred another Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when those junior to him were promoted. Both the writ petitions were heard together. By the impugned order, the High Court confirmed the order of removal from service of the appellant and dismissed the second writ petition. Feeling dissatisfied, the employee delinquent preferred the present appeals.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“As the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. However, as observed hereinabove the order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved.”
“From the material available on record, it appears that in the earlier round of litigation the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years 19992000 to 20032004. The said exercise was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore, the same is required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
Case Name: Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs The Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 796-799 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagrathna
Decided on:11th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
