Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
T. D. Makhija Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. The present LPA is arising out of the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 14314/2005 titled T. D Makhija Vs. Union Bank of India under Clause X of Letters Patent.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court was an employee serving the Union Bank of India was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and after holding a detailed departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has inflicted a punishment of dismissal from service.
3. A review petition was preferred, the same was also dismissed in the matter.
4. The Appellant, thereafter, preferred a Writ Petition before the Learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed by an order dated 13.09.2022, and a subsequent review petition preferred in the matter has also been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by an order dated 09.12.2022.
5. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court became employee of Respondent Bank in the year 1972, and, thereafter, participated as a departmental candidate for the post of Officer Grade-I in the year 1977. He was promoted as Officer Grade-I in December, 1977.
6. The misconduct on the bas
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to support findings, and the importance of following prescribed procedures and rules....
The court confirmed that disciplinary authorities possess broad discretion in imposing penalties, which cannot be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in breach of natural justi....
The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and the Court will not interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority unless there is a violation of natural justice or the....
The court emphasized the bank's loss of confidence in the appellant and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, citing the appellant's failure to follow banking procedures and exercise honest....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordan....
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
