Article 226 - High Court Not Required To Reappreciate Evidence Or Interfere With Findings Recorded By Disciplinary Authority: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review, is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.In this case, the appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/- when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held the most of the charges as proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service.In appeal, the bench noted that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against him. "We are of the opinion that the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank, we deem it just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.", the court said.Regarding the contention that he did not conduct any misconduct, the bench observed thus:"So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. "Disposing the appeal, the court held that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.Case name: Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin BankCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155Case no.|date: CA 796-799 OF 2022 | 11 Feb 2022Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV NagarathnaCaselaw:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited jurisdiction - The High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. (Para 4)Factual Summary: The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/- when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held the most of the charges as proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Article 226 - High Court Not Required To Reappreciate Evidence Or Interfere With Findings Recorded By Disciplinary Authority: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags