Point of Law: The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. The scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 9th January 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Justice K.M. Thaker, J. ) in Special Civil Application No. 18493 of 2011, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the purpose are that:

2.1 The Appellant joined the Respondent-Bank on 10th August 1973 as a Leave Reserve Cashier and was appointed as a Staff Clerk-Cashier in Charge at Sardhar Branch in “C” Category and worked for more than 30 years with the Respondent-Bank. That, the service record of the Appellant was blot-less and the Appellant was not subjected any Departmental or Disciplinary proceedings earlier. On 15th January 2003, the Appellant received a Memo from Zonal office seeking his explanation to Three charges. As per first charge, it was alleged to have addressed the Manager as Hoodlum on 21st February 2002. As per the Second charge, less payment was made or demanded more money from the customers and as per the Third charge, he was careless and irresponsible behaviour while discharging his day-to-day duties. Reply was submitted by the Appellant on 18th January 2003. Thereafter, as per averments made in the Petition, without considering the reply by the Respondent=Bank, on 11th April 2003, Charge-sheet was issued for the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the Appellant during the course of his duties as Staff Clerk-Cashier in Kasturbadham Branch of the Respondent-Bank at Rajkot. That, on 2nd June 2003, the Enquiry Officer passed an order holding that the charges levelled against the Appellant were proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority also passed an order of removal of the Appellant from the services with Superannuation benefits vide order dated 24th July 2003. That, the Appellant raised a dispute with the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, in exercise of power conferred by Clause (d), Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, which was registered as Reference CGITA No. 1424 of 2004. The Respondent filed its Written Statement interalia denying the statement of claim made by the Appellant submitting that in the Departmental proceedings, the Appellant was given opportunity of defending his case, and therefore, the order of dismissal was passed. Learned Judge of the Labour Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides and considering the documentary evidence, was pleased to reject the Reference and confirmed the Order of punishment inflicted upon the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 4th April 2011. That, the Appellant challenged the order of the Labour Court in Special Civil Application No. 18493 of 2011 wherein this Court, vide order dated 9th January 2012, was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition preferred by the original Petitioner and hence, this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the Appellant.

3. Heard learned Counsel Mr. P.V. Patadiya who is appointed by the High Court Legal Aid Service Committee to appear for and on behalf of the Appellant herein and learned Counsel Mr. Nisarg Desai for Nanavati Associates, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Judgment and Order dated 9th January 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18493 of 2011 as well as Order dated 4th April 2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference CGITA No. 1424 of 2004 are contrary to the facts and law. That, no charges were proved against the Appellant and though, the Disciplinary action was taken about removing the Appellant from the service by the Respondent-Authority, which is clearly contrary to the facts and Rules of the Bank.