STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus K.S. VISHWANATH on 20 May 2022

[2022] 4 S.C.R. 143

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

v.

K.S. VISHWANATH

(Civil Appeal No. 3490 of 2022)

MAY 20, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Service Law : Dismissal from service – Delinquent employee-Bank Manager dismissed from service by the disciplinary authorityfor misappropriating the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by preparing fraudulentcash remittance document – Dismissal confirmed by the appellateauthority – In writ petition, the Single Judge of the High Court setaside the dismissal order and directed the employer to give all theconsequential benefits to the employee except back wages as heattained the age of superannuation – Upheld by the Division Bench– On appeal, held: Management of employer has proved thecomplete chain of events to conclude that employee was guilty ofthe charge – Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, reasonablysupport the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of thecharge – Modus operandi adopted by the employee shows criminalmind and conduct – High Court erred in reappreciating the entireevidence on record and interfering with the findings of fact recordedby the Enquiry officer and accepted by Disciplinary Authority, thus,the order of the High Court is patently illegal – Furthermore, itcannot be said that since the delinquent officer has been acquittedin a criminal court, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinaryproceeding – Standard of proof is different in criminal cases anddepartmental proceedings and the same charges and evidences maylead to different results in the two proceedings – Thus, order ofdismissal justified – Order passed by the High Court is quashedand set aside.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the departmental enquiry against thedelinquent officer by the disciplinary authority it was alleged thathe got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance documentand by producing the same at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch,

143

A

B

CDEF

G

H

ABangalore made the officials believe them to be genuine and partwith Rs.10 Lacs as cash remittance to SSI Peenya II Stage Branchand after receiving the same cash he failed to account for thesame in the books of SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. To prove thesaid charge the management as such examined 9 witnesses andproduced 41 documents. The said charge has been held to beBproved by the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of the entireevidence on record including the deposition of the managementwitnesses examined as PW1 to PW7. On considering the enquiryreport and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer it appearsthat the management has been able to establish and prove theCcomplicity of the delinquent officer and has been successful inproving that the delinquent officer prepared the fraudulent letter(by examining PW7) who at the letter requesting for remittanceresembles the style/writing of the delinquent officer (PW1); itwas the respondent–delinquent officer who had come with onemore person whom he introduced as a new cashier and theDdelinquent officer submitted the voucher and that the remittance/cash was given to him inside the vault (by examining PW2 andPW3); the Branch Manager confirmed that the letter allegedlybearing his signature seeking remittance of Rs.10 lakhs was notsigned by him (PW4); and that it was the respondent–delinquentEofficer who went to the Branch with another person for cashremittance and that the cash remittance was paid to therespondent-delinquent officer. [Para 7][152-E-H; 153-A-C]

1.2 It can be seen that the management has been able toprove the complete chain of events which led to the conclusionFthat it was the delinquent officer who prepared the false letter;he went to the Branch for withdrawing the cash along with thefraudulent letter; that it was he who took the cash/remittance ofRs.10 lakhs and thereafter the said amount was not depositedwith the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. [Para 7.1][153-E]

G1.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court it appears that the High Court dealt with andconsidered the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution challenging the decision of the Bank/Management H

dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court wasexercising the powers of the appellate authority. The High Courtcommitted a grave error in interfering with the order passed bythe disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent-delinquentofficer from service. The High Court erred in reappreciating theentire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with thefindings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted bythe disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findingsrecorded by the Enquiry Officer which as such were onappreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by the HighCourt suffers from patent illegality. From the findings recordedby the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidenceat all which may reasonably support the conclusion that theDelinquent officer is guilty of the charge. [Para 7.2, 8][153-F-G;160-D-F]

1.4 The submission on behalf of the respondent-delinquentofficer that as he has been acquitted in a criminal court andtherefore, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary proceeding isconcerned, cannot be accepted. From the judgment and orderpassed by the criminal court it appears that he has been giventhe benefit of doubt. The fact that the criminal court acquittedthe respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, would not inany way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid noraffect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequentialpunishment. The standard of proof required in criminalproceedings being different from the standard of proof requiredin departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence maylead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding ofguilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefitof doubt in the criminal proceedings. [Para 9][160-F-H; 161-A]

1.5 Even the modus operandi adopted by the delinquentofficer also deserves the consideration. As per the evidence onrecord, he went along with the false and fabricated document alongwith another person and he introduced that person as a newcashier and he ensured that the voucher was not signed by himbut signed by the other person who was introduced by him as a AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Anew cashier. Therefore, he saw to it that there is no evidence onrecord that he actually received the money. This shows thecriminal mind/conduct on the part of the delinquent officer.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot besaid that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/management had committed any error in dismissing theBrespondent-delinquent officer from service. [Para 10][161-C-E]

Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others AIR1978 SC 1277 : [1978] 3 SCR 708 – relied on.

Karnataka v. N. Ganga Raj (2020) 3 SCC 423; RajinderCKumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration (1984) 4 SCC635 : [1985] 1 SCR 866 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3490of 2022.

EFrom the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2021 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 4220 of 2011.

Sanjay Kapur, Adv. for the Appellants.

Anish Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Archana Preeti Gupta, NisargFChoudhary, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentGand order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka atBengaluru in Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 by which the High Court hasdismissed the said Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 preferred by the appellant– employer – SBI and has confirmed the judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal passed byHthe Disciplinary Authority and directing the Bank to pay to the delinquent officer consequential benefits without back wages, the appellant - SBI –employer has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein - the delinquent officer was workingas a Deputy Manager (Cash) at SSI Peenya II Stage Branch of the SBIBank at Bangalore from 14.03.1996 onwards. That there was arequirement of Rs.10 lakhs which was required to be collected fromPeenya Industrial Estate Branch of the Bank. That on the basis of oneforged letter dated 06.08.1996, the delinquent officer withdrew Rs.10lakhs fraudulently. The delinquent officer produced a false letter dated06.08.1996 at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch and withdrew the aforesaidamount of Rs.10 lakhs which remained unaccounted at the SSI Branch.The letter dated 06.08.1996 was purported to have been signed by oneA.R. Balasubramanian, the AGM of the SSI Branch. He denied hissignature found on the letter dated 06.08.1996. Subsequently on tallyingthe account it was found that Rs.10 lakhs was withdrawn from PeenyaIndustrial Estate Branch which was to be deposited at SSI Branch hadnot been accounted for and the said amount had not been deposited withthe SSI Branch. Thereafter the local Head Officer submitted a complaintto the CBI on 10.11.1998, based on which the FIR was registered. Theaforesaid FIR was registered after the preliminary investigation washeld on 18.09.1998. It was found that the fraud has been committed bythe insider, who was well aware of the procedure for cash remittance aswell as with the signature of the Branch Manager of SSI Branch. Therespondent – delinquent officer was placed under suspension. Thereaftera departmental enquiry was initiated against the delinquent officer andhe was charged with the charge-sheet as under:

“(i) On 6[th] August, 1996, you got prepared a set of fraudulentcash remittance documented and by producing the same at PeenyaIndustrial Estate Branch, Bangalore made the officials threatbelieve them to be genuine and part with Rs.10 Lacs as cashremittance to SSI Peenya II stage Branch and you failed to accountfor the same in the books of SSI Peenya II Stage Branch.

(ii) You have made substantial investments in Kisan Vikas Patraand Special Term Deposits with SBI Staff Co-operative CreditSociety, Bangalore during the period 23.09.1998 to 08.06.1988and you failed to make proper disclosures of the same in the Assets& Liabilities Statements submitted by you.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AYour act stated at (i) above has resulted in the Bank incurring anundue loss of Rs.10 Lacs.”

2.1 Before the Enquiry Officer, 41 documents and 9 witnesseswere produced by the management to prove the charges. Afterconsidering the statements/depositions of management witnesses PW1Bto PW7 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charge no.1 asproved and charge no.2 as partly proved. The Appointing Authorityagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penaltyof dismissal from services which came to be confirmed by the AppellateAuthority.

C2.2 Thereafter the respondent – delinquent officer filed a writpetition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. By the timethe writ petition came to be disposed of, the respondent – delinquentofficer attained the age of superannuation. By judgment and order dated22.03.2011 the learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishmentand directed the Bank to give all the consequential benefits to the originalDwrit petitioners except back wages as in the meantime he attained theage of superannuation.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of punishmentimposed by the appointing authority, the Bank filed the present Writ AppealENo.4220 of 2011 before the Division Bench of the High Court. Thedelinquent officer also filed Writ Appeal No.4599 of 2011 against thedenial of back wages. Both the writ appeals came to be heard, decidedand disposed of by a common impugned judgment and order. By thecommon impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the HighFCourt has dismissed both the appeals, one preferred by the appellant –management and another preferred by the delinquent officer.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in dismissingthe Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 and confirming the judgment and orderGpassed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the punishment imposedby the appointing authority, the Bank – employer has preferred thepresent appeal.

3. Shri Sanjay Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theBank has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division BenchH

have materially erred in interfering with the findings recorded by theEnquiry Officer which were on appreciation of evidence on record, bothdocumentary as well as oral.

3.1 It is submitted that during the enquiry the Managementexamined in all 9 witnesses and produced on record 41 documents toprove the charges. That the management witnesses were primarilyemployees of the Bank who were also cross-examined during the courseof enquiry. It is submitted that in the present case PW2 and PW3, theCash Officer and the Accountant confirmed the practice adopted by theBranch seeking remittance, as also the fact that the respondent on therelevant date had come with one more person whom he introduced asthe Cashier of the Branch. By examining the aforesaid witnesses, themanagement has established and proved that voucher and remittance/cash was given to the respondent inside the vault.

3.1.1 It is submitted that by examining the witness namely, theBranch Manager - PW4, the management has proved that the BranchManager whose alleged signature was found on the alleged letter was infact not of his and that he confirmed that the letter allegedly bearing hissignature seeking remittance of Rs.10 lakhs was not signed by him atall. He explained the normal practice during the course of his evidence.

3.1.2 It is submitted that PW5 and PW6 confirmed that it was therespondent – delinquent officer who had come to the Branch with anotherperson with cash remittance and he was a witness to the said incident.

3.1.3 It is further submitted by Shri Kapoor, learned counselappearing for the Branch Manager that even the management has beensuccessful in establishing and proving that it was respondent – delinquentofficer who got prepared the fraudulent letter. Further, PW7 - proprietorof the photo stating shop confirmed that it was the respondent who hadcome for typing the fraudulent letter and she got typed the same in hershop. It is submitted that she also identified the respondent in the enquiry.

3.2 It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant – Bank that despite the aforesaid clinching evidence placed onrecord the High Court has erred in holding that the bank has not beenable to prove the complicity of the respondent in the alleged offence. Itis urged that while setting aside the order of punishment the learnedSingle Judge acted beyond the scope and ambit of the writ jurisdictionand the power of the judicial review conferred on a constitutional court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3.3 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State ofKarnataka vs. N. Ganga Raj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423, it issubmitted by Shri Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant – Bank that in the said decision this Court observed and heldthat the power of Judicial Review conferred on a constitutional court isnot that of an appellate authority but is confined only to the decision-Bmaking process. It is submitted that as held, under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, the High Court shall not reappreciate theevidence, interfering with the conclusions in the enquiry, go into theadequacy or reliability of the evidence or correct the error of fact howevergrave it may be.C

3.4 It is contended that the High Court has committed a graveerror in interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officerand setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the appointingauthority.

4. While opposing the present appeal learned counsel appearingDon behalf of the respondent – delinquent officer has made the followingsubmissions:

(i) That the respondent herein had an unblemished record fromhis joining as a clerk till the date of alleged incident in hiscareer of long 28 years and had even got two promotions; E

(ii) That the entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs was allegedly paid toone Shri M.N. Kiran and not to the respondent – delinquentofficer;

(iii) Initially the Local Head Officer of the Branch directed oneFShri M.R. Srinath, AGM to investigate the matter. ShriSrinath investigated the matter and found that there was noinvolvement of any officer from the SSI Peenya II Branchand completely absolved the delinquent officer. It is submittedthat it was observed that the style of the letter requestingthe remittance resembles the usual style adopted by theGdelinquent officer. That it is observed that that none of thedocuments at the SSI Peenya Branch was tampered withwhich is indicative of non-involvement of staff of the SSIPeenya Branch;

(iv) That in the criminal proceedings investigated by the CBI,Hthe delinquent officer has been acquitted by the competent criminal court. That the learned Single Judge specificallyobserved and held that the enquiry was vitiated due to theviolation of principles of natural justice;

(v) The enquiry officer held the respondent guilty on meresurmises and conjectures.

(vi) The enquiry officer erred in relying on the deposition ofPW7, who claimed to be the manager of the photocopyingshop;

(vii) That the manager failed to prove that document/letter dated06.08.1996 was prepared by the respondent - delinquentofficer.

(viii) Therefore, once the preparation of document was itselfdoubtful from the evidence of PW7 there is no question offorging the signatures on the said documents by therespondent;

(ix) That therefore, the entire allegation is made on falsehoodwhich has not been proved by any evidence.

4.1 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of NandKishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1978 SC 1277,it is submitted that as held by this Court the domestic tribunals are quasi-judicial in character. Therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules ofnatural justice is that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on thebasis of some evidence i.e. cogent material which with some degree ofdefiniteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of chargesagainst him.

4.2 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of RajinderKumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635, it issubmitted that a quasi-judicial tribunal which records findings based onno legal evidence, then the findings are either ipse-dixit or based onconjectures and surmises. The enquiry suffers from the additional infirmityof non-application of mind and stands vitiated.

4.3 On judicial review, it is submitted that if there is proceduralviolation and violation of principles of natural justice, the courts are justifiedto set aside such administrative action and in many a case may possiblydirect a denovo enquiry. It is submitted that however, in the present casethe delinquent officer has attained the age of superannuation, he cannot A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abe burdened with the fresh enquiry and the courts have to set aside thesaid administrative action itself. It is submitted that therefore as such therespondent was required to be reinstated with full back wages. Thatinstead the High Court has denied the back wages to the respondent –delinquent officer. Therefore, the impugned judgment and orders passedby the High Court are not required to be interfered with by this Court inBexercise of powers conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia.

Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeal.

C5. In rejoinder learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant– Bank has pointed out that in view of the judgment and order passed bythe learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench, the respondent– delinquent officer would get Rs.25.61 lakhs towards terminal benefitsand arrears of pension etc. and thereafter Rs.20,502/- per month towardspension, which would amount to granting premium to dishonesty.D

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the departmentalenquiry against the delinquent officer by the disciplinary authority it wasalleged that he got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance documentEand by producing the same at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bangaloremade the officials believe them to be genuine and part with Rs.10 Lacsas cash remittance to SSI Peenya II Stage Branch and after receivingthe same cash he failed to account for the same in the books of SSIPeenya II Stage Branch. To prove the aforesaid charge the managementas such examined 9 witnesses and produced 41 documents. The aforesaidFcharge has been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer on appreciationof the entire evidence on record including the deposition of themanagement witnesses examined as PW1 to PW7. On considering theenquiry report and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer it appearsthat the management has been able to establish and prove the complicityGof the delinquent officer and has been successful in proving that;

(i) The delinquent officer prepared the fraudulent letter dated06.08.1996 (by examining PW7) who at the letter requestingfor remittance resembles the style/writing of the delinquentofficer (PW1); H

(ii) It was the respondent – delinquent officer who had comewith one more person whom he introduced as a new cashierand the delinquent officer submitted the voucher and thatthe remittance/cash was given to him inside the vault (byexamining PW2 and PW3);

(iii) The Branch Manager confirmed that the letter allegedlybearing his signature seeking remittance of Rs.10 lakhs wasnot signed by him (PW4);

(iv) And that it was the respondent – delinquent officer whowent to the Branch with another person for cash remittanceand that the cash remittance was paid to the respondent –delinquent officer.

The aforesaid findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were onthe appreciation of evidence on record, both documentary as well asoral. Despite the above, the High Court has observed and held that themanagement had failed to prove the complicity of the delinquent officerin the alleged offence.

7.1 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the management hasbeen able to prove the complete chain of events which led to theconclusion that it was the delinquent officer who prepared the falseletter dated 06.08.1996; he went to the Branch for withdrawing the cashalong with the fraudulent letter; that it was he who took the cash/remittance of Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter the said amount was notdeposited with the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch.

Then, what else was required to be established and proved by theManagement to prove the complicity of the delinquent officer?

7.2 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt it appears that the High Court has dealt with and considered thewrit petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challengingthe decision of the Bank/Management dismissing the delinquent officeras if the High Court was exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority.The High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India has reappreciated the evidence on record whichotherwise is not permissible as held by this Court in a catena of decisions.

7.3 Recently in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad (Supra) afterconsidering other decisions of this Court on judicial review and the power A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the High Court in a departmental enquiry and interference with thefindings recorded in the departmental enquiry, it is observed and heldthat the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of theauthorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It isfurther observed and held that the High Court is concerned to determinewhether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, andBaccording to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether therules of natural justice are not violated. It is further observed that ifthere is some evidence, that the authority entrusted with the duty to holdthe enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably supportthe conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is notCthe function of the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to review/reappreciate the evidence and to arriveat an independent finding on the evidence. In paragraphs 9 to 14, thisCourt had considered other decisions on the power of the High Court onjudicial review on the decisions taken by the Disciplinary Authority asunder:D“9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [State ofA.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723], a three-JudgeBench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court ofappeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmentalenquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determineEwhether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf,and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, andwhether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Courtheld as under : (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7)

“7. … The High Court is not constituted in a proceedingFunder Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over thedecision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry againsta public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiryis held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according tothe procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules ofGnatural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence,which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiryhas accepted and which evidence may reasonably support theconclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it isnot the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ underArticle 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independentHfinding on the evidence.”

10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC(L&S) 80] , again a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held thatpower of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but areview of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fairtreatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authorityreaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellateauthority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its ownindependent findings on the evidence. It was held as under : (SCCpp. 759-60, paras 12-13)

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but areview of the manner in which the decision is made. Power ofjudicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fairtreatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authorityreaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When aninquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant,the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquirywas held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justiceare complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are basedon some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to holdinquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding offact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on someevidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor ofproof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinaryproceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence andconclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authorityis entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act asappellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive atits own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunalmay interfere where the authority held the proceedings againstthe delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules ofnatural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the modeof inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by thedisciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion orfinding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached,the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts ofeach case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensivepower to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment.In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence andfindings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidenceor reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassedbefore the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Unionof India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364],this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon considerationof the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverseor suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based onno evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”

11. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S.Patil [High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] , this Court held that interferencewith the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if suchauthority had held proceedings in violation of the principles ofnatural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribingthe mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution. It was held as under : (SCC p. 423, para16)

“16. The Division Bench [Shashikant S. Patil v. HighCourt of Bombay, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 97 : (2000) 1 LLN160] of the High Court seems to have approached the case asthough it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with thedecision of departmental authorities can be permitted, whileexercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if suchauthority had held proceedings in violation of the principles ofnatural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribingthe mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority isvitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and meritsof the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the veryface of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonableperson could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds verysimilar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the HighCourt) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properlyconducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legalevidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy oreven reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassingbefore the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution.”

12. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi ChandNalwaya [State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi ChandNalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721] , thisCourt held that the courts will not act as an appellate court andreassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfereon the ground that another view is possible on the material onrecord. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and thefindings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of theevidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be groundfor interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. TheCourt held as under : (SCC pp. 587-88, paras 7 & 10)

“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as anappellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domesticenquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possibleon the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly andproperly held and the findings are based on evidence, the questionof adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidencewill not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmentalenquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of factrecorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findingsare based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal actingreasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, onthe material on record. The courts will however interfere with thefindings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice orstatutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found tobe arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneousconsiderations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC(L&S) 80], Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [Union ofIndia v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1806] and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [Bank ofIndia v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC(L&S) 1036] , High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S.Patil [High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

***

10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquittedthe respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in anyway render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affectthe validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment.The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings beingdifferent from the standard of proof required in departmentalenquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to differentresults in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmentalproceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in thecriminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmentalproceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time,when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by thecriminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domesticenquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry andthe punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality bynon-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decisionon the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquittedhim.”

13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran [Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554] , this Court held that whilereappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellateauthority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held theparameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in thedisciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)

“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the samehas been conducted in accordance with law; STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. v. K.S. VISHWANATH[M. R. SHAH, J.]

(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 findingscan 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 itsconscience.”

14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondentrelies upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. KrishnaNarayan Tewari [Allahabad Bank v. Krishna NarayanTewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 335], whereinthis Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a findingthat is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a findingwhich is unreasonably arrived at, the writ court could interferewith the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not findthat even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Courtcould interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinaryauthority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings areperverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconducthas been interfered with only on the ground that there arediscrepancies in the evidence of the Department. Thediscrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence.The inquiry officer has appreciated the evidence and returned afinding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.”

That thereafter this Court has observed and held in paragraph 7,8 and 15 as under:

“7. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration theevidence led before the IO to return a finding that the chargeslevelled against the respondent stand proved.

8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by theTribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error.The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-makingprocess. The power of judicial review conferred on theconstitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellateauthority.

A

B

CDEF

G

H

A15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of theenquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appealbefore the State Government was also dismissed. Once theevidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, inexercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the HighCourt could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded byBreappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority.We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed the largerBench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S. SreeRama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723] and B.C. Chaturvedi [B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCCC(L&S) 80] as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed bythe Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent illegality andthus cannot be sustained in law.”

A

8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that theDHigh Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the orderpassed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent – delinquentofficer from service. The High Court has erred in reappreciating theentire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the findings offact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinaryauthority. By interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry OfficerEwhich as such were on appreciation of evidence on record, the orderpassed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the findingsrecorded by the Enquiry Officer recorded hereinabove, it cannot be saidthat there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support theconclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.F

9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent –delinquent officer that as he has been acquitted in a criminal court andtherefore, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary proceeding is concerned,the aforesaid has no substance. From the judgment and order passed bythe criminal court it appears that he has been given the benefit of doubt.GEven otherwise the standard of proof which is required in a criminalcase and that of the disciplinary proceedings is different. The fact thatthe criminal court acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit ofdoubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedinginvalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequentialpunishment. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions the standardH

of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from thestandard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same chargesand evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, thatis, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by givingbenefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings

10. Now the next question which is posed for consideration iswhether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appointingauthority was justified in dismissing the delinquent officer from serviceis concerned looking to the seriousness of the charge proved ofmisappropriating the sum of Rs.10 lakhs and not depositing the samewith the Bank, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal can be said tobe disproportionate to the charge and misconduct held to be proved. Atthis stage even the modus operandi adopted by the delinquent officeralso deserves the consideration. As per the evidence on record, he wentalong with the false and fabricated document dated 06.08.1996 alongwith another person and he introduced that person as a new cashier andhe ensured that the voucher was not signed by him but signed by theother person who was introduced by him as a new cashier. Therefore,he saw to it that there is no evidence on record that he actually receivedthe money. This shows the criminal mind/conduct on the part of thedelinquent officer. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the caseit cannot be said that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/management had committed any error in dismissing the respondent –delinquent officer from service.

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissing the appeal and not interfering with the judgment andorder passed by the learned Single Judge which interfered with the orderof punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing therespondent – delinquent officer from service and the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and set aside.

The order passed by the Management dismissing the respondent– delinquent officer on proved charge and misconduct is hereby restored.

Present Appeal is accordingly Allowed. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H