TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s branch manager of the bank's Chandabila branch from 14.12.1988 to 30.05.1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him when a charge sheet on 23.10.1997 alleging his complicity in five major charges (stated in paragraph 15 below) was issued by the bank. The charge sheet was issued seven years after he was transferred from the Chandabila branch. During this time several audits were conducted in terms of the norms stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India. 3. The allegations against the employee pertained to the period when he was posted as Manager in the said Chandabila branch. The charge sheet alleged that he disbursed loan in favour of twelve fictitious persons in connection with the Integrated Rural Development Project (hereafter called "IRDP") introduced by the Central Government. The loan had two components wherein 50% i.e., Rs. 5,000/- was repayable term and the remaining 50% i.e., Rs. 5,000/- was subsidy. In terms of the scheme, 93 applications were received which were to be examined and the applicants identified on the basis of joint inspection by the bank and the Gram Panchayat concerned. Once the identified applications were forwarded to the District Rura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the appeal by order dated 28.04.2003. The aggrieved employee approached the Calcutta High Court, Under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P. No. 1391 (W)/2004. By a judgment and order Dated 15.05.2007. that writ petition was rejected. The employee then filed an appeal. By the impugned order, the division bench allowed that appeal, and set aside the orders of the appellate and disciplinary authorities. Contentions of the bank 6. It is argued on behalf of the bank that the High Court re-appreciated the evidence and altered the finding on facts of the disciplinary authority on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. This was contrary to settled proposition that courts, in judicial review, cannot weigh the evidence appreciated by a domestic tribunal. It was urged that the High Court erred in acting as an appellate authority and such action is in the teeth of law laid down by this Court in several decisions, such as UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Har Narain Singh 1998 (9) SCC 220; State Bank of India v. Ram Dinkar Punde 2006 (7) SCC 212 and Government of A.P and Ors. v. Mohd. Narsulla Khan 2006 (2) SCC 373. Counsel further argued that the impugned judgment was in erro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as sufficient material to impose the penalty of dismissal. The High Court set at naught this fact appreciation, and based on its re-appreciation of the evidence, set aside the penalty. This, it was urged, would be prejudicial to the interests of the bank. Contentions of the employee 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent employee, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, urged this Court not to interfere with the impugned judgment. He contended that the employee was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings. Those findings were not based on any evidence and were purely conjectural. The findings were clearly perverse and therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified or legal. It was urged that though seven borrowers deposed favorably as far as the employee was concerned, only the Ex-Pradhan deposed against the Respondent. However, he was held guilty without independent verification of identity of persons. It was underlined that no evidence was adduced about who liquidated the loan. The entire conclusions in the enquiry report were based on surmises. 12. Mr. Chatterji urged that the Respondent left the branch in June 1990. The chargesheet was issued much later, and the enquiry was conducted se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting of the subsidy register and also from his own experience that Sri Madan Mohan Saha used to maintain the register on most occasions. There was no evidence that the Appellant ever maintained the said register. During enquiry MW 1 stated that there was authentication of the Respondent in some cases and by himself in many cases in the subsidy register when the amount was debited. It was Sri Madan Mohan Saha's duty as the cashier to maintain the subsidy register, and he failed to discharge his duty. The said amount was credited to marginal deposit account. The matter of non-recording of the said subsidy amount in the subsidy register was due to Sri Madan Mohan Saha's omission. For that irregularity the Respondent could not be held responsible; he did not deliberately conceal the fact with any malafide intention. (b) With respect to the charge of depositing subsidy in the account of twelve fictitious beneficiaries, findings were based on the evidence of seven of those beneficiaries, whose names were actually shown in the record. These witnesses denied having received or returned the loans. They were identified by Sri Haradhan Bera (MW2), subsequent Pradhan, Chandabila Gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clear case where interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted is when there is no evidence to establish the official's guilt. 22.... The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned Attorney General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the Appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari can be issued in favour of the Respondent. 23. That takes us to the merits of the Respondent's contention that the conclusion of the Appellant that the third charge framed against the Respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence. The learned Attorney General has stres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciate the evidence. The court held that: 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 enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the enquiry 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 enquiry 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 the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary 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 judicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidence, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. This Court struck a similar note, in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584, where it was observed that: If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It makes judicial review of administrative orders a hopeless formality for the litigant.... It reduces the judicial process in such cases to a mere feint. 21. Coming now to the charges, it can be seen that MW 1, the management witness, who deposed about the procedure in the bank, for recording entries in the subsidy register, clearly stated that at the relevant time, some entries were made by the Respondent, and some by Sri Madan Mohan Saha, who "used to maintain the subsidy register on most occasions." He also deposed that it was Sri Madan Mohan Saha's duty as the cashier to maintain the subsidy register. Saha failed to discharge that duty. In view of this evidence, and no contrary documentary evidence casting the primary responsibility to maintain the subsidy register on the Respondent, the impugned judgment, in this Court's opinion, cannot be faulted with in concluding that there was no material to prove the first charge against the employee. As regards the second charge of misappropriation of subsidy amount from twelve individuals, whose names were fraudulently introduced, the bank relied on the depositions of seven persons. They were identified by Sri Haradhan Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Sd/- Manager-3/3/94 With Manager's Office Seal. Attested By Manager with seal 15.3.94 The document was witnessed by six persons (Sri S.K. Sukhjan Ali, Sri Santosh Kumar Saha, Sri Trilochan Singh, Sri Suresh Chandra Das, Sri Nabin Suri and Sri S.K. Washef Hussain). The document was not exhibited. Undeniably: (a) The Respondent did not sign the confession. (b) The confessional statement dated 03.03.1994 was made by Sri Subhendu Kumar Das and Sri Madan Mohan Saha, which was attested by an officer of the bank. (c) The confession was an admission as far as its makers were concerned. The impugned judgment held that this document could not be used against the employee Respondent to fasten him with liability for alleged misappropriation. The finding based on a document not even admitted into evidence and not signed and accepted, by the Appellant was held to be perverse. 23. This Court previously had an occasion to deal with a departmental proceeding that culminated in a penalty, where the enquiry was based on the confessional statements made to the police and no other material. The court, in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (200....