2000 Supreme(Raj) 1397

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.S.Chauhan, J.
R.S. Tanwar - Appellant
Versus
Marwar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Pali and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1568 of 1996.
Decided On : 1-09-2000

The main legal point established is the need for proportionate punishment, the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, and the limited scope of judicial review.

Headnote:

Dismissal - Service - 23.1.95 - 28.4.95 - The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Section 35B - The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, while working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the respondent Bank, was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.2.93 pending inquiry on the charges of visiting another village and misappropriating the amount of Rs. 8000/-, for which a criminal case was also lodged. The matter has been argued not only on the quantum of punishment but also on two more issues, i.e. (i) once the Final Report has been submitted by the investigating agency in a criminal case, whether order of dismissal can be sustained in the eyes of law; and (ii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the evidence led before the inquiry officer, the finding of misappropriation could be recorded against the petitioner. These issues were agitated and entertained with the consent of the parties. The Court can review only the `decision making procedure' and not the `decision' of the authority. The Court, not being a Court of Appeal, is incompetent to substitute its own view on factual aspects of the case. The Court can review to correct errors of law or fundamental procedural requirements which may lead to manifest injustice and can interfere with the impugned order in `exceptional circumstances'. The High Court, in its limited power to exercise of judicial review, may interfere by appreciating the evidence only if there is an omission on the part of the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to consider the relevant evidence. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are in unequivocal terms as under. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of facts for the reason that it could not be successfully argued by Mr. Dave that those findings are based on no evidence or run counter to the evidence on record. Merely because in criminal case a final report has been submitted by the investigating agency, petitioner cannot take any benefit thereof. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceeding. Acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry for the same offence for the reason that in a criminal trial, standard of proof is different and the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but the same is not true in a departmental proceeding as such a strict proof of misconduct is not required therein. The issue of quantum of punishment has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and it was held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary and thus would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, being illegal, it cannot be enforced. The Court may further examine the effect. If order is set aside or substituted by some other minor penalty. The Court is not an appellate authority and, therefore, the Court will be loath to interfere with that part of the order. In case of accepting the illegal gratification and refraining from prosecution against the offender, the dismissal of service is warranted. Once an employee is found guilty of embezzlement, the minimum punishment is dismissal and Court should not interfere in such cases. The punishment awarded is disproportionate or the Disciplinary Authority was irrational in imposing the punishment, the punishment cannot be quashed as even then the matter has to be remitted back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration and it is only in very rare cases that the Court might-to shorten the litigation-think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority. The Writ Court should not normally interfere with those findings unless the findings are shown to be wholly perverse or legally untenable. The adequacy, or inadequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the Court as the High Court cannot sit as appellate forum for the factual finding recorded during the disciplinary proceedings for the reason that it exercises a very limited power of judicial review and in exercise of such power, the High Court should not substitute its own conclusion with regard to the guilty or delinquency, for that of the departmental authority. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the respondent Bank, was dismissed from service on charges of visiting another village and misappropriating Rs. 8000. The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the dismissal and subsequent appeal rejection.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the dismissal was justified based on the evidence and legal principles. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review and the need for proportionate punishment.

Issues: The issues included the validity of dismissal based on a final report in a criminal case, the sufficiency of evidence for misappropriation, and the proportionality of the punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, the need for proportionate punishment, and the limited scope of judicial review.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the dismissal from service and emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment and the limited scope of judicial review.