TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted from Peenya Industrial Estate Branch of the Bank. That on the basis of one forged letter dated 06.08.1996, the delinquent officer withdrew Rs.10 lakhs fraudulently. The delinquent officer produced a false letter dated 06.08.1996 at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch and withdrew the aforesaid amount of Rs.10 lakhs which remained unaccounted at the SSI Branch. The letter dated 06.08.1996 was purported to have been signed by one A.R. Balasubramanian, the AGM of the SSI Branch. He denied his signature found on the letter dated 06.08.1996. Subsequently on tallying the account it was found that Rs.10 lakhs was withdrawn from Peenya Industrial Estate Branch which was to be deposited at SSI Branch had not been accounted for and the said amount had not been deposited with the SSI Branch. Thereafter the local Head Officer submitted a complaint to the CBI on 10.11.1998, based on which the FIR was registered. The aforesaid FIR was registered after the preliminary investigation was held on 18.09.1998. It was found that the fraud has been committed by the insider, who was well aware of the procedure for cash remittance as well as with the signature of the Branch Manager of SSI Branch. The res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a common impugned judgment and order. By the common impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court 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 judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in dismissing the Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the punishment imposed by the appointing authority, the Bank - employer has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Sanjay Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have materially erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which were on appreciation of evidence on record, both documentary as well as oral. 3.1 It is submitted that during the enquiry the Management examined in all 9 witnesses and produced on record 41 documents to prove the charges. That the management witnesses were primarily employees of the Bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d held that the power of Judicial Review conferred on a constitutional court is not that of an appellate authority but is confined only to the decisionmaking process. It is submitted that as held, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not reappreciate the evidence, interfering with the conclusions in the enquiry, go into the adequacy or reliability of the evidence or correct the error of fact however grave it may be. 3.4 It is contended that the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the appointing authority. 4. While opposing the present appeal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - delinquent officer has made the following submissions: (i) That the respondent herein had an unblemished record from his joining as a clerk till the date of alleged incident in his career of long 28 years and had even got two promotions; (ii) That the entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs was allegedly paid to one Shri M.N. Kiran and not to the respondent - delinquent officer; (iii) Initially the Local Head Officer of the Branch direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view, it is submitted that if there is procedural violation and violation of principles of natural justice, the courts are justified to set aside such administrative action and in many a case may possibly direct a denovo enquiry. It is submitted that however, in the present case the delinquent officer has attained the age of superannuation, he cannot be burdened with the fresh enquiry and the courts have to set aside the said administrative action itself. It is submitted that therefore as such the respondent was required to be reinstated with full back wages. That instead the High Court has denied the back wages to the respondent - delinquent officer. Therefore, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 5. In rejoinder learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - Bank has pointed out that in view of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench, the respondent - delinquent officer would get Rs.25.61 lakhs tow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oresaid, it can be seen that the management has been able to prove the complete chain of events which led to the conclusion that it was the delinquent officer who prepared the false letter dated 06.08.1996; he went to the Branch for withdrawing the cash along with the fraudulent letter; that it was he who took the cash/remittance of Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter the said amount was not deposited with the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. Then, what else was required to be established and proved by the Management to prove the complicity of the delinquent officer? 7.2 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has dealt with and considered the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Bank/Management dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court was exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority. The High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has reappreciated the evidence on record which otherwise is not permissible as held by this Court in a catena of decisions. 7.3 Recently in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad (Supra) after consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding 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 threeJudge Bench of this Court has held that power of 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 eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under : (SCC pp. 75960, paras 1213) "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 corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] , this Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under : (SCC p. 423, para 16) "16. The Division Bench [Shashikant S. Patil v. High Court of Bombay, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 97 : (2000) 1 LLN 160] of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [Bank of India 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) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .) *** 10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the evidence led before the IO to return a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent stand proved. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decisionmaking process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority. xxx xxx xxx 15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed the larger Bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S. Sree R....