Absence Of Management Witnesses Doesn't Vitiate Banking Disciplinary Enquiry If Records Support Findings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of management witnesses in a banking disciplinary enquiry does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings if the findings are supported by documentary records.Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dealing with a challenge to disciplinary proceedings initiated by Punjab National Bank against a senior officer, who had been dismissed from service on allegations of lapses in credit appraisal and monitoring.Petitioner had contended that the enquiry was vitiated as no management witnesses were examined and the case was built solely on documents marked through the Presenting Officer. It was argued that such documents were not formally proved and could not form the basis of findings in a departmental enquiry.Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed,“In Banking disciplinary matters, the evidentiary foundation often lies in records rather than in viva voce accounts of events. The absence of management witnesses does not, by itself, render the findings unsupported, unless the delinquent demonstrates that essential facts could not have been established without oral testimony and that the denial of such testimony caused prejudice.”On facts, the Court noted that the inquiry was based on a documentary trail including sanction notes, stock statements, inspection reports, and compliance records. It found that the petitioner's defence was not that there was no material on record, but rather that the conclusions drawn from the material were incorrect and that responsibility had been wrongly attributed.The Court emphasised that in judicial review under Article 226, the High Court does not convert into an appellate forum over disciplinary proceedings. “A departmental enquiry is not re-tried, nor is the evidence re-weighed as if the Court were hearing a statutory appeal. Judicial review against disciplinary decisions remains directed to the legality of the decision-making process, not to the merits of the conclusion as such. Interference is warranted where the enquiry is vitiated by jurisdictional error, where the prescribed procedure is violated in a manner causing prejudice, where principles of natural justice are breached, or where findings are based on no evidence or are so irrational that no reasonable authority could have reached them,” it said.As such, the Court declined to interfere with the conclusions of the disciplinary authority but it found that the punishment of dismissal required reconsideration on the ground of proportionality and accordingly remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh determination of penalty.Appearance: Mr. Rajinder Gulati and Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocates with Petitioner in person; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Likivi K. Jakhalu and Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Advocates for RespondentCase title: PK Varun v. PNBCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 310Case no.: W.P.(C) 7894/2018Click here to read order

Absence Of Management Witnesses Doesn't Vitiate Banking Disciplinary Enquiry If Records Support Findings: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Absence Of Management Witnesses Doesn't Vitiate Banking Disciplinary Enquiry If Records Support Findings: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers