TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Sewla Branch on 10th/11th November, 1999 when the incident of theft was reported. The respondent delinquent being one of the joint custodian of cash was responsible for safety of keys of cash/strong room and failed to take all precautionary steps as being indicated in the guidelines of the Bank and because of the alleged negligence on the part of the respondent delinquent in handling the keys in inappropriate manner resulted into theft/loss of cash from the cash safe. For such delinquency committed by him in discharge of his official duties, he was placed under suspension in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 12 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976(hereinafter being referred to as the "Regulations 1976") by an Order dated 29th November, 1999. 4. Later, chargesheet dated 7th December, 1999 along with four article of charges was served and by a corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000, additional charge No. 5 was served upon him. It may be appropriate to quote the extract of articles of charges, dated 7th December, 1999 along with additional charge No. 5 by a corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 as under:­ 1. Being one of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e procedure prescribed under the scheme of Regulations, 1976 and after affording opportunity of hearing and due compliance of principles of natural justice, held charge nos. 1,3 and 4 proved vide report dated 31st July, 2001. However, charge nos. 2 and 5 were not held proved. 6. It is an admitted fact that the date on which the theft was committed, i.e. 10th/11th November, 1999, Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was the Manager of Sewla, Agra Branch. During that period, the present respondent was Assistant Manager and one Mr. K.L. Khandelwal was the Assistant Manager(Cash). Apart from them, four other clerks were posted at Sewla Branch and Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was not on duty on the day when the incident had taken place. The signatures of custodian ­ the present respondent delinquent and Mr. K.L. Khandewal(Assistant Manager(Cash) were confirmed and in support thereof, document ME­2/1 to ME­2/5 were placed on record. 7. The statement of fact was duly recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report that the respondent delinquent was custodian of keys on the day, i.e., 10th/11th November, 1999 when the theft was committed and he was one of the joint custodian of cash and responsibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch on 10.11.1999, in absence of the Manager, must have fully ensured about the safety and security of the branch in view of alarming/huge cash accumulation (Rs. 27,84,002.17) in the branch as at the close of business on 10.11.99. Laxity in security is also evident from ME­15. So, it is well substantiated by P.O. that the Asstt. Manager was lacking in his duty while leaving the branch on 10.11.99 in absence of the Manager, in the matter of security and safety of the branch. I, therefore, hold that charge No. 3 stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, C.S.O. Charge No. 4 Findings of the Inquiry Officer: I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. & DR/CSO and my findings in this regard are as under:­ Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry proceedings by the concerned parties, I concur with the arguments advanced and facts established by the Presenting Officer, who has established from ME6/1&2 that "A record of custody of all important keys should be carried in a key Register. All changes in the custody of keys should be promptly made thereinunder the signatures of the custodians." ME­8 & ME­22/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved Exonerated The above punishments shall run concurrently, However, since no moral turpitude is being found against Shri Bhardwaj, he will be paid with all terminal benefits payable to him." 10. The order passed by the appellate authority came to be challenged by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the record of inquiry, arrived to the conclusion that Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was the Branch Manager on the date when the incident had occurred, i.e., 10th/11th November, 1999 and the joint responsibility was of the Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager(Cash). Since the present respondent delinquent was the Assistant Manager, he could not be held to be responsible for lapses and set aside the order of punishment inflicted upon the respondent delinquent under its Order dated 19th October 2019. 11. On Letters Patent Appeal preferred at the instance of the present appellant, the Division Bench under the impugned judgment has not taken care to examine the report of inquiry and has just reproduced the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned and dismissed the appeal by an Order dated 21st J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember, 1999 from the cash safe of the Branch which appears to be factually incorrect. It was the respondent delinquent who was the custodian and in­charge of keys at the relevant point of time along with Assistant Manager(Cash) and the finding was recorded by the Inquiry Officer supported by the documentary evidence on record and this was never questioned by the respondent delinquent at any later stage even when he was served with the inquiry report or to the disciplinary or appellate authority while assailing the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in his report. This is the manifest error which the Division Bench of the High Court has committed in interfering with the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent delinquent in which charge nos. 1 and 4 were finally held proved against him. In the given circumstances, the interference made by the High Court in the impugned judgment is not sustainable and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that respondent was the Assistant Manager and the responsibility was of the Manager of the Branch and the Assistant Manager(Cash) and submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of his duties as a custodian when the theft had taken place on 10th/11th November, 1999 but the High Court in the impugned judgment has not taken pains to examine the finding recorded by the inquiry officer in reference to the responsibility which the respondent delinquent failed to discharge as a custodian of cash at the relevant point of time when the theft was committed. 21. That apart, what has been recorded by the inquiry officer has been revisited by the disciplinary/appellate authority and after reappreciation of record of inquiry and due application of mind, the appellate authority while exonerating the respondent delinquent from charge No. 3 held charge nos. 1 and 4 proved against him and punished him by an order dated 23rd December, 2002. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has taken pains to look into the finding which was recorded by the inquiry officer in reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 and appreciated thereafter by the disciplinary/appellate authority in passing of the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. 22. In our considered view, the finding which has been recorded by the High Court in the impugned....