IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal giving benefit of doubt can have no effect on completed departmental enquiry.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Judicial review – Courts should not act as appellate court – Cannot reassess evidence led in the domestic enquiry – Nor can it interfere on the ground that another view is possible – Adequacy or reliability of evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries – Courts can interfere only where findings are based on no evidence or are clearly perverse – Courts can also interfere if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Para 7)
       (1995) 6 SCC 749; (1997) 7 SCC 463; (1999) 5 SCC 762; (2001) 1 SCC 416 – Relied upon
       (b) Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Dismissal – Proportionality – Court considering
       Proportionality of punishment – Loss of confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor – Bank will be justified in losing confidence in a negligent employee. (Para 8)
       (c) Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Criminal proceeding – Acquittal giving benefit of doubt – No effect on completed departmental enquiry – Cannot affect validity of findings in departmental enquiry – More so when departmental enquiry was more proximate to the incident – Further, employee allowing punishment in departmental proceeding to attain finality cannot challenge it after several years on the basis of acquittal in criminal proceedings. (Para 10)
       (d) Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Delinquent dismissed after properly conducted enquiry – High Court setting aside dismissal on basis of later acquittal in criminal proceeding – Granting reinstatement with full back wages – Not justified – High Court Order set aside – However order of dismissal modified to compulsory retirement. (Para 11, 12)
       Facts of the case:
       The respondent was a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the appellant Bank. He was issued a charge-sheet.
       The charge-sheet followed a preliminary enquiry in which the respondent broadly admitted the facts constituting the subject matter of the two charges.
       The Inquiry Officer held that both the charges against the respondent were proved. The disciplinary authority was of the view that the respondent was not guilty of the first charge. He, however, concurred with Inquiry Officer in regard to the finding of guilt recorded in respect of the second charge. The punishment of dismissal was imposed.
       In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint by the Branch Manager, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in regard to the allegations which were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry. The criminal court acquitted the respondent holding that charges were not proved beyond doubt.
       The respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, along with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
       The division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal. The pendency of the criminal case was accepted as sufficient explanation regarding delay.
       Finding of the Court:
       There was no justification for the division bench to interfere with the finding of guilt.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the sufficiency, adequacy, or reliability of evidence in a departmental enquiry cannot be examined or reassessed by courts exercising writ jurisdiction. [judgement_subject]

Courts in writ jurisdiction will not act as an appellate authority over departmental enquiries. They cannot reassess the evidence led, interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible, or question the adequacy or reliability of the evidence as grounds for interference. Interference is limited to cases where findings are based on no evidence, are clearly perverse (i.e., a reasonable tribunal could not have arrived at such a conclusion), or where principles of natural justice, statutory rules, or considerations of arbitrariness, caprice, mala fides, or extraneous factors are violated. [1000498760006] (!) [1000498760008]

ORDER

R. V. Raveendran J.,

1. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the appellant Bank. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.8.1988. The two charges against him are extracted below :

(i) On 14.10.1987, you disclosed the balance of SB Account No.1025 of Shri Dharamchand Nathaji lying in in-operative account to an unidentified person posing himself as the said account holder though the person was not having even Pass Book of that account. This disclosure of secrecy led a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- from the said account thereby putting the bank into loss.

(ii) On 14.10.1987, you have advised Shri I.M. Rawal, the counter clerk handling Savings Banks ledgers to transfer the balance lying in account number 1025 in the name of Shri Dharam Chand Nathaji from in-operative Savings Bank ledger to that of operative ledgers without first obtaining the permission of the Branch Manager which is a pre-requirement in all such cases. It is further alleged that you have collected the withdrawal form purported to have been signed by the depositor, handed over the same to Shri I.M. Rawal, the counter clerk, obtained token and after it was passed for payment by the Branch Manager, obtained payment from paying cashier Shri S.R. Meghwal The real depositor has subsequently complained that the signature on withdrawal form was forged and the matter is now under police investigation."

The charge-sheet followed a preliminary enquiry by one H. S. Sharma, an officer of the appellant bank, in which the respondent broadly admitted the facts constituting the subject matter of the two charges.

2. A joint enquiry was held in respect of the charges against the respondent and two others namely I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal. Several witnesses were examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12.6.1989 holding that both the charges against the respondent were proved. He also held that the charges against I.M. Rawal and S.R. Meghwal were also proved. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report. He was of the view that on the material placed in the inquiry, the respondent was not guilty of the first charge. He, however, concurred with Inquiry Officer in regard to the finding of guilt recorded in respect of the second charge. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 23.6.1990 proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal in regard to the second charge. After considering the respondents' reply, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 1.8.1990, imposed the punishment of dismissal. The matter rested there for several years.

3. In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint by the Branch Manager, a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, in regard to the allegations which were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry. The criminal court acquitted the respondent by judgment dated 7.7.1994, holding that charges were not proved beyond doub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 241

2011 (4) SCC 584IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA R.V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR - APPELLANT VersusNEMI CHAND NALWAYA - RESPONDENTCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5861 OF 2007Decided On: March 01, 2011.

IMPORTANT POINTAcquittal giving benefit of doubt can have no effect on completed departmental enquiry.

Cases Referred (3)

2011 (4) SCC 584
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR - APPELLANT
Versus
NEMI CHAND NALWAYA - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5861 OF 2007
Decided On: March 01, 2011.

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal giving benefit of doubt can have no effect on completed departmental enquiry.