Back
2009(1) Supreme 438
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Roop Singh Negi — Appellant
versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14429 of 2007)
Decided on : 19-12-2008
(2006) 4 SCC 713; (1964) 4 SCR 718; (2008) 3 SCC 484; (1999) 3 SCC 679; (2006) 5 SCC 88; (2007) 1 SCC 566 – Relied upon.
(1999) 2 SCC 10; AIR 1988 SC 434 – Referred.
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant was working as a peon in the respondent - Bank.
2. On or about 24.11.1993, a complaint was lodged by the Manager of the Bank alleging that some drafts which were presented for encashment by M/s Anil Trader and some other persons and purported to have been issued from the Mall Road Branch of the Bank had in fact not been issued therefrom.
3. A First Information Report under Section 380/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The investigating officer submitted a report on 11.12.1993, inter alia, opining that the integrity of the appellant who had been transferred to Rampur, Shimla was doubtful.
4. After five years of the said incidence, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant stating that during the period 18.11.1991 and 9.10.1993, he had taken away one blank draft issue book bearing No. 626401 to 626425.
5. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer.
6. The Regional Manager acting as a disciplinary authority by an order dated 24.1.2001 without assigning any reason and without considering the contentions raised by the appellant including the fact that he had been discharged by the criminal court, directed the appellant to be dismissed from services.
7. The departmental appeal was dismissed.
8. The appellant filed a Writ Petition which also was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
Finding of the court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed with cost.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, requiring the charges against the employee to be proved with sufficient evidence. The proceedings must be conducted fairly, with proper consideration of all relevant facts and evidence (!) (!) .
Evidence collected during criminal investigations, such as police reports or confessions made to police, cannot be automatically accepted as proof in departmental proceedings unless properly proved and corroborated by other evidence (!) .
The management witnesses in disciplinary cases are expected to prove the contents of documents they tender, rather than merely tendering the documents themselves. Reliance solely on documents without proper proof of their contents is insufficient (!) (!) .
Confessions made to police cannot be used as conclusive evidence in departmental proceedings unless they are proved through proper procedures. Allegations of coercion or torture to obtain confessions must be scrutinized, and such confessions require proper proof before being relied upon (!) .
Orders passed by disciplinary and appellate authorities must be supported by reasons, especially when they have serious consequences for the employee. Orders lacking proper reasoning are liable to be set aside (!) .
The findings of the enquiry officer should be based on admissible and legally valid evidence, and the conclusion should be supported by a preponderance of probability, not mere suspicion or conjecture (!) (!) .
In judicial review or writ petitions, courts should reappraise the evidence only to the extent of determining whether there is any legal basis to support the findings. They should not re-evaluate the evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the departmental authorities unless there is a total lack of evidence or violation of principles of natural justice (!) (!) .
The principle of natural justice requires that the employee be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, and that the department's decision-making process is transparent and reasoned (!) .
If the disciplinary proceedings are based on no evidence or evidence obtained improperly, the orders resulting from such proceedings are liable to be quashed or set aside (!) (!) .
The final decision in disciplinary cases should be based on proper proof, and any order of punishment such as dismissal must be justified with clear, admissible, and relevant evidence, along with adequate reasons supporting the decision (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with drafting legal documents related to this case.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was working as a peon in the respondent - Bank. On or about 24.11.1993, a complaint was lodged by the Manager of the Bank alleging that some drafts which were presented for encashment by M/s Anil Trader and some other persons and purported to have been issued from the Mall Road Branch of the Bank had in fact not been issued therefrom. A First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) under Section 380/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The investigation of the said case was assigned to one Shri Janardhan Singh, Senior Inspector. He submitted a report on 11.12.1993, inter alia, opining that the integrity of the appellant who had been transferred to Rampur, Shimla was doubtful. It was concluded:
“In view of the facts stated above we are of the view that both the joint custodian i.e. Shri H.C. Grover - Manager, presently posted at BO Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Shri P.C. Gupta - AM are responsible for the loss of the drawing book since either of the two have remained one of the custodians from 1.6.93 to 24.8.93. The loss of drawing book could have been avoided had they taken due care and precaution. Further, Shri Sharad Narain, Sr. Manager is also responsible as he has failed to ensure compliance of laid down instructions in respect of monthly checking of security forms and also for non-submission of M.C. after 31.5.93.”
In the said report, various procedural lapses on the part of some officers of the Bank were also pointed out.
3. After five years of the said incidence, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant stating that during the period 18.11.1991 and 9.10.1993, he had taken away one blank draft issue book bearing No. 626401 to 626425. A show-cause notice was issued. Cause was shown by him. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. In the said proceeding, reliance was placed on the purported confession of the appellant before the police authorities in the year 1993. It was marked as Exhibit PE-3.
4. Indisputably, the forms and other important books and documents belonging to a Bank never remain in the custody of a peon. It was accepted that documentary evidences were collected by the police officers. Those documents were simply produced; they were not proved. The purported confession by the appellant was also not proved. Only because the said confession was made before the police authorities, the enquiry officer inferred on the basis thereof that the appellant had connection with those persons who had used those bank drafts, stating:
“....Therefore, the undersigned is of the opinion that PE-4 proves that Shri Roop Singh Negi has connections with the said culprits. On examination of witness MDW-1 on 20/7/99, he has said that according to the statement of Shri Roop Singh Negi, he has confessed that on the instructions/saying of Rajbir, Devinder alias Mental, Asif and Brahmpal, who are the residents of trans-Yamuna area he had stolen the draft book.....”
It was, inter alia, concluded :
“In view of the above details/proceedings it is proved that the delinquent employee has admitted that drafts being no. QWA-626401 to 626425 have been stolen from Branch office Mall Road Delhi Branch vide page no. 25057 and has caused financial loss to the bank but he has not admitted that he has stolen the said drafts.
As the main charge on the delinquent employee is of stealing the draft books and other documents, therefore, in such matters direct proof/evidence are not available generally and the conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of assumptions....”
Assumption of certain factual foundation was drawn on the basis of the documents supplied by the police as would appear from the following findings of the Enquiry Officer.
“1. Efforts were made to through Lost Draft book no. 626404 dated 6.9.93 for Rs. 6,90,000/- was prepared the fake draft and encashed through OBC Farukabad prepared through PNB Branch Farukabad and again draft drawn on OBC Delhi and encash
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
