Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 156

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Allahabad)
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Regional Manager, UCO Bank and Another - Appellants
Versus
Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.(S). 1457 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 13953 of 2021)
Decided On : 18-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Vibha Datta Makhija, Sarfaraz Khan, Nusrat Ali Siddiqi, Ram Swarup Sharma, Praveen Gaur, Firasat Ali Siddiqi, Karan Mamgain, Shaiyra Khhana, Ravi S.Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manish Singhvi, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Apurv S.,Adv. Smriti Singh, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Scope of judicial review – Power of judicial review in matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136 of Constitution of India, is not akin to adjudication of case on merits as an appellate authority.
(2 Punishment – Merely making allegation that inquiry officer was biased is not sufficient unless supported by material placed by him either during course of inquiry or before disciplinary/appellate authority.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 32/226 – Scope of judicial review – Power of judicial review in matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136 of Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of case on merits as an appellate authority. (Para 18)
(B) Service Law – Punishment – {Regulation 12 of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976} – Merely making allegation that inquiry officer was biased is not sufficient unless supported by material placed by him either during course of inquiry or before disciplinary/appellate authority – What has been recorded by inquiry officer has been revisited by disciplinary/appellate authority and after reappreciation of record of inquiry and due application of mind, appellate authority while exonerating respondent delinquent from charge no. 3 held charge nos. 1 and 4 proved against him and punished him – Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of High Court has taken pains to look into finding which was recorded by inquiry officer in reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 and appreciated thereafter by disciplinary/appellate authority in passing of order of penalty inflicted upon respondent delinquent – Finding which has been recorded by High Court in impugned order is unsustainable and not supported with report of inquiry available on record – High Court in impugned judgment has not taken pains to examine finding recorded by inquiry officer in reference to responsibility which respondent delinquent failed to discharge as a custodian of cash at relevant point of time when theft was committed – High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interfering with disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent delinquent and being unsustainable deserves to be set aside – Judgment of Division Bench of High Court accordingly quashed and set aside. (Paras 22 to 26)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the order of Single Judge dated 19th October, 2019 pursuant to which the inquiry proceedings and consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent delinquent were quashed and set aside.
Finding of Court:
Both the orders of the disciplinary/appellate authority are on record and cogent reasons have been assigned while concurring with the finding of the inquiry officer in order of disciplinary authority. The appellate authority also, after due appreciation of the record of inquiry and confirmed by disciplinary authority, arrived to the conclusion that the finding recorded in reference to charge no. 3 is not proved and held charge nos. 1 and 4 proved on the basis of which he was persuaded to modify the punishment under the Order dated 23rd December, 2002.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review of disciplinary inquiries is limited to correcting legal/procedural errors and not re-adjudicating on merits (!) (!) (!) . - Merely alleging bias of the inquiry officer is insufficient without supporting material or evidence (!) . - The appellate authority can revisit inquiry findings, but must provide reasons and may modify penalties after due appraisal of record (!) (!) . - The High Court’s interference with findings of charge Nos. 1 and 4 was found unsustainable; the disciplinary report and appellate order were upheld and quashed the High Court judgment (!) . - The court emphasized that strict rules of evidence do not apply, but findings must be grounded in evidence that a reasonable person could rely on (!) (!) . - The matter discusses the correct allocation of responsibility in a departmental theft case, including the roles of Branch Manager and Assistant Manager in supervisory failures (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate order dated 23rd December, 2002 quantified punishment (compulsory retirement and two-stage pay reduction) after re-appreciation of the record (!) (!) . - The Division Bench’s error was in misapprehending who bore responsibility for the theft, leading to improper interference (!) (!) . - The Court confirms that the power of judicial review is to ensure natural justice and proper procedure, not to reassess factual conclusions independent of evidence (!) (!) . - The appeal filed by the bank succeeds; High Court judgment quashed and set aside (!) .

Question 1?

How to understand the scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries under Article 226/136 of the Constitution?

Question 2?

What is the standard for establishing bias or prejudice of an inquiry officer in departmental inquiry proceedings?

Question 3?

What are the powers and limits of appellate authorities when modifying findings or penalties in disciplinary cases?

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th October, 2019 pursuant to which the inquiry proceedings and consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent delinquent were quashed and set aside.

3. The respondent delinquent was serving as an Assistant Manager, Sewla Branch on 10th/11th November, 1999 when the incident of theft was reported. The respondent delinquent being one of the joint custodian of cash was responsible for safety of keys of cash/strong room and failed to take all precautionary steps as being indicated in the guidelines of the Bank and because of the alleged negligence on the part of the respondent delinquent in handling the keys in inappropriate manner resulted into theft/loss of cash from the cash safe. For such delinquency committed by him in discharge of his official duties, he was placed under suspension in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 12 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976(hereinafter being referred to as the “Regulations 1976”) by an Order dated 29th November, 1999.

4. Later, chargesheet dated 7th December, 1999 along with four article of charges was served and by a corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000, additional charge no.5 was served upon him. It may be appropriate to quote the extract of articles of charges, dated 7th December, 1999 along with additional charge no.5 by a corrigendum dated 13th March, 2000 as under:

2. Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, being one of the joint custodians of cash, did not arrange to remit the surplus cash on 10.11.1999 to Currency Chest, Belanganj Branch, Agra even though there was huge cash balance much more than the average, anticipated daily requirement. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

3. Before leaving the branch on 10.11.1999 after close of cash, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj did not check about the closure of one rear gate between the main hall and passage towards toilet of Sewla Branch, Agra which was left unlocked/opened on 10.11.99. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

4. Mr. Bhardwaj did not maintain the key register for noting the transfer of keys from one holder to another. He himself along with Chief Cashier had not signed the key register on taking over charge of the keys of cash safe/strong room of the branch. Thus, he failed to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.

5. That Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was in hand and glove with some person with an ulterior motive in perpetration of theft of cash at Sewla Branch for Rs.12.00 lacs on 10th/11th November, 1999. Thus he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty, which is violative of Regulation3 of UCO BANK Officers employees

Click Here to Read the rest of this document