The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to ensuring that the individual received fair treatment, and not to interfere with the order of an authority, who after according fair treatment, reached a conclusion on a matter which it was authorised by law to decide, which may not be correct in the eyes of the Court.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. The petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of India as a Clerk on April 18, 1962, and was promoted in the year 1972 to the rank of Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I and posted to the Jalandhar City branch of the Bank. While the petitioner was so posted, F.I.R. No. 481 dated December 3, 1973, Under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal code was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, with regard to certain frauds which had taken place in the Jalandhar City Branch of the Bank the allegation being that 9 bank drafts had been forged and thereafter encashed as a result of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and his co-accused. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and while in police custody, he is alleged to have written a letter of confession admitting his guilt and also deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- allegedly through one Tilak Raj Walia as his share of the booty on account of the pressure put on him by the police. The petitioner was, however, acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated February 12, 1986, Annexure P-1 to the petition on the ground that there was no evidence against him. During the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, a charge sheet dated October 18, 1982, relating to the fraud committed in Jalandhar City branch and in Ludhiana Miller Gunj branch of the Bank was served on him. A copy of the charge sheet has been appended as Annexure P-2 to the petition. In the charge sheet, particular reference was made to the fact that the petitioner had already tendered his confession on December 11, 1973 and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to make good the loss to the Bank. The Bank thereafter appointed Mr. H.L. Mehra as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges against the petitioner, but this action was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1983 in this Court claiming that a departmental inquiry as also a criminal prosecution could not go on simultaneously. By an interim order dated May 26, 1983, this Court ordered that the inquiry proceedings could continue but the final order could be passed by the Bank with regard to the charges which were not the subject matter of the criminal case. The inquiry thereafter was confined only to the three bank drafts encashed at the Ludhiana Miller Gunj branch whereas the charge with regard to the six bank drafts was stayed. The proceedings in the inquiry took place on March 14, 1983, April 14, 1983 and April 22, 1983, and on the last date the parties were required to submit their written briefs. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report on June 29, 1983 (Annexure P-8 to the petition), holding therein that the guilt of the petitioner stood established from the letter of confession written by him which letter stood proved by the evidence of Mr. S.R. Gosain, one of the banks witnesses, and the further fact that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had been deposited on behalf of the petitioner, which showed his involvement in the incident in question. The Inquiring Authority was further influenced by the fact that though the petitioner had been given a chance to cross-examine the banks witnesses in order to disprove the genuineness of the letter of confession as also the situation in which the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- had been made, he had not chosen to do so despite having been requested repeatedly by him in that behalf. The punishing authority thereafter vide Annexure P-10-A to the writ petition agreeing with the report and conclusions drawn by the Inquiring Authority, dismissed the petitioner from service. The appeal (Annexure P-11 to the writ petition) was filed by the petitioner which too was rejected vide Annexure P-12 to the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition had been filed.

2. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one point before me, his sole argument being that the letter of confession, dated December