Back
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, A.K.PATNAIK
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR – Appellant
Versus
NEMI CHAND NALWAYA – Respondent
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
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
