2007 Supreme(Bom) 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SWATANTER KUMAR,C.J.,& DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Niraj Kumar Singh Petitioner
versus
Union Bank of India .Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.1535 of 2007
Decided on 29.10.2007

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226-Writ jurisdiction- Exercise of-Limitation for-Court while exercising writ jurisdiction not sit as a Court of Appeal on facts and law.-The first and the foremost question that has to be answered by the Court is whether the grounds taken by the petitioner while impugning the order of dismissal are the one which would fall within the scope of judicial review in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the grounds that have been taken by the petitioner are primarily based upon appreciation and/or re-appreciation of the evidence. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal on fact and law. The order essentially must be one which is perverse, not supported by any evidence or of the nature where statutory regulations have been violated that too to the prejudice of the delinquent officer. None of these conditions are satisfied in the present case.

       Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition - Challenging departmental proceedings - Possibility of a different view on basis of evidence - Cannot be a ground for Court to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by departmental authorities. - In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was granted fair opportunity and is fact there is no serious averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition that any statut ory rules or regulations were violated and/or then was violation of principles of natural justice coupled with prejudice to the petitioner. Merely because on the evidence certain conclusions could not have been arrived at or that a different view was possible would be no ground for the Court to disturb the concurrent finding recorded by the departmental authorities. Even otherwise, the allegation of withdrawal of money from the account of others while functioning in the ATM Cell of the Bank on the basis of a card is a serious matter and the Court cannot treat such a charge lightly so as to disturb the finding of fact.

       Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 309 and 311 - Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of, with regard to disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct - Punishment for - Interference with - Punishment being shockingly disproportionate to gravity of charge or shocks judicial conscience of Court - Warrants interference of Court with quantum of punishment only - Gravity of punishment - A precept for determining quantum of punishment. - An halfhearted attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment inflicted on him is too harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Court is unable to accept this submission inasmuch as the Court will interfere with the quantum of punishment only when such punishment shocks the judicial conscience of the Court and/or is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Gravity of misconduct would be a precept for determining the quantum of punishment.

       Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 309 and 311 - Departmental proceedings - Covered on ground of preponderance of probability - Bar to proceedings - Lodging of a police report - Commencement and conclusion of departmental proceedings not barred - No doubt can be created on these proceedings - Limitations and standard of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings entirely different and distinct. - Lodging of a police report is neither a bar to the commencement and conclusion of the departmental proceedings nor any doubt can be created on these proceedings. The scope of a criminal trial, its limitations and standard of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely distinct and different. Strict rule of evidence are not applicable to departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings would be covered on the ground of preponderance of probability while in criminal trial it has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.