Disciplinary Authority Must Exercise Independent Judgment, Not Act Under Dictates Of Other Authorities: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has upheld a Single Judge's decision setting aside the removal of a Punjab National Bank employee from service, holding that a disciplinary authority vested with statutory discretion must exercise its powers independently and not under the dictates of another authority. The Court observed that where the disciplinary authority fails to independently apply its mind while imposing punishment, the decision-making process stands vitiated and is amenable to judicial review.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by Punjab National Bank against a judgment quashing the respondent's order of removal from service and the appellate order affirming the punishment.
The respondent was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in April 1994. In October 1997, he was served with a charge-sheet containing several allegations, following which a departmental enquiry was initiated. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on January 15, 2000. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice proposing the punishment of removal from service and, after considering the employee's reply, passed an order removing him from service on November 6, 2000.
The respondent's departmental appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, following which he approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside both the order of punishment and the appellate order.
Before the Division Bench, the Bank contended that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were based on documentary evidence, management exhibits and oral testimony adduced during the departmental enquiry. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in treating those findings as perverse.
The High Court observed that the principal issue was whether the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings were supported by legally admissible material and whether the disciplinary authority had exercised its discretion independently while imposing punishment.
Examining the record, the Bench noted that the learned Single Judge had found that no material conclusively established the charges against the employee and that most of the charges had not been proved. The Court further noted that even the disciplinary authority had observed that the Inquiry Officer appeared to be biased to some extent.
The Bench held that the Bank had failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Single Judge were unsupported by the record. The Court also agreed with the Single Judge's conclusion that the disciplinary authority had failed to exercise independent judgment.
Referring to correspondence exchanged with the Chief Vigilance Officer, the Bench observed that the disciplinary authority had itself considered that a lesser punishment would be appropriate. Despite this, the employee was ultimately removed from service. The Court held that the record lent credence to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority had been influenced by considerations extraneous to its own independent assessment. Emphasising the scope of a disciplinary authority's powers, the Bench observed:
“The law is equally settled that where discretion is vested in a statutory or disciplinary authority, the same must be exercised independently and not under the dictates of another authority.”
The Court further clarified that the Single Judge had not re-appreciated the evidence as an appellate court. Instead, the interference was confined to examining the perversity of the enquiry findings and the failure of the disciplinary authority to independently exercise its statutory discretion, both of which went to the root of the decision-making process and fell within the permissible limits of judicial review.
Finding no patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the order setting aside the respondent's removal from service.
Case Title: The Punjab National Bank v. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 911 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10392 of 2003.
Appearance: Mr. Amit Kumar Anand for the Appellant. Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad for the Respondent.