TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rregularities committed by him) and he was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on five charges. The charges read as follows: CHARGE No. I That on 10.2.82, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80p in connection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch. In the said bill you make a claim of Rs. 9,500.00 being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full truck and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated 9.1.82 for Rs. 9,500.00 obtained from M/s. Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur, whereas you neither engaged a full truck nor spent Rs. 9,500.00 for the transport of household goods. By your above act you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. CHARGE II That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12.194.80p dated 10.2.82 you made another claim for Rs. 120/- supported by two false separate money receipts dated 9.2.82 for Rs. 60/- each obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard whereupon the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition on three grounds, namely (1) non-supply of Enquiry Officer's report before imposing the penalty vitiates the order of punishment (2) the appellate order is not a speaking order and is therefore not in conformity with Rule 51(2) of the S.B.I. (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and (3) the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority on charges 1 to 3 and 3 are based on no evidence and must therefore be characterised as perverse. 4. In this appeal, Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank assailed the correctness of all the said three findings. So far as the first ground given by the High Court is concerned, it must be held to be not sustainable in law in view of the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. JT1993(6) 1, inasmuch as the order of punishment in this case is prior to 20th November, 1990. 5. Before dealing with the second ground, we think it appropriate to deal with the third ground, in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....videnced by two receipts dated 9.1.82. The Enquiry Officer found that in view of the grave discrepancies with respect to the dates of transportation and also because Ram Prasad who is said to have accompanied the goods in the truck was not examined, the charge mast be held proved. The Enquiry Officer found that the loading and unloading did not take place on the dates mentioned therein. This finding is again based upon the documentary evidence and cannot be said to be not supported by any evidence. The High Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence in support of the Enquiry Officer's finding that Ram Prasad is a fictitious person. We have perused the finding of Enquiry Officer closely. The finding is not that Ram Prasad is a fictitious person but that his non-examination goes to show that the respondent's case that the said person accompanied the goods is not established. No doubt, he also added that Ram Prasad appears to be a fictitious person, but that is only by way of an additional reason; it is not the main reason. 7. With respect to charge No. 3, the reasoning of the High Court is the same as is assigned by it with respect to charge No. 2. The High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It "is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made." Per Lord Brightman in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans 1982(3) All E.R. 141 and A.B. Gandhi v. M/s. Gopinath & Sons :1992 Suppl. (2) S.C.R. 312. In other words the power of judicial review is meant "to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court". (Per Lord Marylebone in Chief Constable v. Evans). In fact is service matters, it was held by this Court as far back as 1963 that: The High Court is not constituted under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant; it is concerned to determine whether the inquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the appropriate punishment are placed, was final, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty for as we have already observed the order of dismissal passed by a competent authority on a public servant, if the conditions of the constitutional protection have been complied with, is not justiciable. Therefore if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. 12. This principle was reiterated in Railway Board, Delhi and Anr. v. Niranjan Singh (1969)IILLJ743SC 13. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989)IILLJ57SC . It was an appeal from the judgment and order of an Administrative Tribunal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with approval the observations of Mathew J. in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972)ILLJ1SC to the following effect: Now it is settled by the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (1963)ILLJ239SC that if the order of a punishing authority can be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether the charge proved along would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the misdemeanour established. 15. It would perhaps be appropriate to mention at this stage that there are certain observations in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)IILLJ206SC which, at first look appear to say that the Court can interfere where the penalty imposed is "arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service". It must however be remembered that Tulsiram Patel dealt with c....