Back
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S.OKA
Regional Manager, UCO Bank – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj – Respondent
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?
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 (!) .
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
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
