Important pointUnless punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of Court/Tribunal there is no scope for interference by Court.

Headnote:Service Law—Scope of interference with quantum of punishment—Court should not interfere with administrator’s decision unless it was illogical and suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to conscience of Court—Respondent while temporarily working as Branch Manager of appellant Bank withdrew Rs. 25,000/- unauthorisedly—Order of removal from service—High Court in L.P. appeal set aside the order of removal and directed appellant bank to reconsider the matter and pass punishment other than dismissal, removal or termination of respondent—High Court found that respondent had already deposited the amount with interest at 24 p.a.—Appeal—Scope of judicial review was limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision—Even when Court felt that punishment was shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for such conclusion—No definite findings recorded that punishment suffered from infirmity—Impugned order could not be sustained.
Held : Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury’s case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. (Paras 14 and 15)
In the case at hand, the High Court’s judgment is full of ifs and buts. There is no definite finding recorded that the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. No basis has been indicated to direct re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that the respondent had miserably failed to prove bonafides. Though he took the stand that he had informed the head office about the withdrawal, no material was placed before any of the authorities to prove it. It is to be noted that on the basis of material on record, it was concluded that the withdrawal was on 6.5.1992 and not on 9.5.1992 as was claimed. The respondent-employee has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the account of bank with the State Bank of India on 6.5.1992 and had withdrawn a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the cash. (Para 20)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Damoh Panna Sagar, Rural Regional Bank - the appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing the Board of Directors of the employer Bank (in short the ‘Board’) to reconsider the matter and pass any punishment other than dismissal, removal or termination of the respondent - Munna Lal Jain (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employee’).

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On the allegation that while temporarily functioning as the Branch manager of Kabra Branch, the respondent-employee withdrew a sum of Rs. 25,000/- unauthorisedly and such act amounted to misconduct warranting serious penalty. Because of such unauthorized withdrawal, charges were framed against him by charge sheet dated 14.10.1992 alleging that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 6.5.1992 for his personal use. The respondent-employee filed his explanation. Though not disputing the factum of withdrawal, plea was taken by him that during the relevant period condition of his wife had deteriorated and required immediate surgical interference. He had informed about withdrawal to the Head Office at Damoh. The explanation was not accepted, an enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report on 20.7.1993 holding that the employee was guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after following the formalities i.e. issuance of show-cause notice, passed the order of removal. In appeal the said order of removal was maintained. Against the aforesaid order the employee preferred Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1995. Learned Single Judge held that the charges levelled have been duly brought home, but remitted the matter to the appellate authority for re-consideration with regard to the quantum of punishment. Pursuant to the direction, the matter was again considered by the Board and it was held that the order of removal did not require reconsideration. Employee filed a Writ Petition (W.P.No. 4812 of 1998). Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, held that the Board had not considered the matter from all angles keeping in view the observations made in the earlier order dated 13.5.1998. Direction was given to the Board to re-consider the penalty of removal. The matter was again re-considered and the Board refused to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The said order was assailed in Writ Petition No. 5236 of 2000. Learned Single judge declined to interfere on the ground that the charges had been proved and the Board had passed a detailed order. Learned Single Judge further held that the factum of illness of the wife had not been proved as no documents had been filed.

4. The matter was carried in a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. It was stand of the employee before the Division Bench that the money was withdrawn because of an emergency and he had some of money in his Provident Fund account. In any event, the money had been deposited in the bank with 24 interest which was much higher than the rate of interest that is payable on loan availed without security i.e. overdraft.

5. In response, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the employer, that there was no scope for interference with the quantum of punishment.

6. The High Court observed that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. It, however, noticed that the amount has been repaid with 24 interest. It was observed that though adequate material was not placed to establish the wife’s illness that could not be a ground to uphold the punishment of removal, particularly when he had paid back the amount with 24 interest. There was no allegation that earlier he had committed any kind of delinquency. It was noted that antecedents do not play positive role in all cases, but in certain cases they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1603

Important pointUnless punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of Court/Tribunal there is no scope for interference by Court.

Cases Referred (7)