DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).                        OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 32067­32068 of 2018) DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS           ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA                          ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. th 2. Dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and   order   dated   13 September, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of   Allahabad,   the   instant   appeals   have   been   preferred   at   the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2021.01.05 16:48:13 IST Reason: instance of the appellant Bank. 1 3. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the purpose are that   the   appellant   is   a   statutory   body   incorporated   and constituted   under   the   State   Bank   of   India   Act,   1955.   The respondent joined service as a Cashier/Clerk in Mumfordganj th Branch  Allahabad   on  07   December,   1981.  While   on  duty, a misconduct   was   committed   by   him   for   which   he   was   placed th under suspension in the first place by order dated 14  August, th 1995   and   later   the   charge­sheet   dated   11   April,   1996   was served upon him detailing seven charges of misappropriation of funds which he had committed in discharge of his duties as an employee of the Bank.  4. It   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   for   the   self­same misappropriation of bank’s money by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the Branch where he was posted, a criminal case was also instituted against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120­B IPC and Section   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988.  th 5. After the charge­sheet dated 11  April, 1996 was served, the th respondent delinquent submitted his reply dated 08  May, 1996 2 denying   all   the   charges.   The   enquiry   officer   was   thereafter appointed by the competent authority to hold enquiry in terms of Bipartite   Settlement   applicable   for   award   staff   of   Nationalized Bank.     The   respondent   had   participated   in   the   disciplinary enquiry   and   the   enquiry   officer   after   holding   enquiry   in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the  Bipartite Settlement   applicable   for   award   staff   of   Nationalized   Bank nd furnished   his   report   of   enquiry   dated   22   May,   1999   to   the disciplinary authority holding that Charge No.1 was not proved, at the same time, held the Charge Nos. 2 to 7 proved against him. nd In his report dated 22   May, 1999, it has been noticed by the enquiry officer that respondent delinquent stated in the course of enquiry   that   he   neither   wants   to   say   anything   about   the prosecution documents nor he wants to ask any question to the presenting officer and did not produce any documentary evidence to   substantiate   his   statement   in   defence   regarding   fictitious credits in his account which was the allegation against him for misappropriation of funds of the Bank and the fact remains that all the allegations levelled against the respondent were supported with the documentary evidence duly audited by the Bank. 3 6. The extract of the charges with the documents on which the enquiry officer placed reliance and held the charge to be proved after discussion in detail against the respondent are reproduced hereunder:­  Allegation/Charge No.1: On   16.02.1994,   saving   bank   account   no.12215   of   Shri   I.S. Verma (an account holder) was debited with Rs.1,09,600/­ and part amount of Rs.89,600/­ was credited to his current account No. P­51 without the consent of account holder. To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents:­ PEX­1 Debit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.1,09,600.00 relating to savings bank account No.12215 of Shri I.S. Verma. PEX­2 Current account credit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.89,600 pertaining to current account No. P­15 of Shri Srivastava (E.P.A). PEX­3 Ledger sheet of current account No. P­51.   The Charge is not proved. Allegation/Charge No.2: On 25.03.1994, Shri Srivastava entered into a conspiracy with some staff members at the Branch with a view in defraud the bank and accordingly a fake debit was raised in branch clearing general account through schedule No.4 for Rs.4,87,300 and this amount was first  posted in saving  bank account No.7547 in favor   of   Shri   K.C.   Miglani.   This   amount   was   subsequently withdrawn in instalments on 25.03.1994 and 04.04.1994 and amount of Rs.89,150 and Rs.10,000 were misappropriated by him   through   credit   to   his   current   account   No.   P­15   on   the aforesaid dates. 4 To prove the above allegations/charges, the presenting officer produced the following documents: PEX­4: Branch   clearing   general   account   schedule   No.4   dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.4,87,300. PEX­5: Saving bank credit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.4,87,300 pertaining   to   saving   bank   account   No.7547   of   Shri   K.C. Minglani. PEX­6: Debit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.2,36,550 pertaining to savings bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C. Miglani. PEX­7: Current account credit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.89,150 pertaining   to   current   account   No.   P­51   of   Shri   Ajay   Kumar Srivastava. PEX­8:   Debit   voucher   dated   04.04.1994   for   Rs.2,40,750 pertaining to saving bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C. MIglani. PEX­9 Current Account credit voucher dated 04.04.1994 for Rs.10600 pertaining   to   current   account   No.   P­51   of   Shri   Ajay   Kumar Srivastava, actually the voucher is for Rs.10000. PEX­10 Current account day book dated 04.04.1994. PEX­11 Ledger sheet of current account No. P­15 of Shri Ajay Kumar Shrivastava The Charge is proved. Allegation/Charge No.3: On   22.09.1994,   Shri   Srivastava   conspired   with   some   staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs.5,00,000/­ was raised in branch’s saving   bank   a/c   and   out   of   the   above   an   amount   of Rs.2,00,000/­ was misappropriated by him through credit to his current account No. P­51. To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents: PEX­12 – Saving Bank day book dated 22.09.1994 PEX­13 – Current A/c day book dated 22.09.1994 5 PEX­14 – Ledger sheet of current a/c No. P­51 pertaining to Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava. The charge is proved.  Allegation/Charge No.4: On 30.12.1994, Shri Srivastava entered into a conspiracy with some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the Bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs.5,30,000 was raised in Branch’s   current   Account   and   out   of   the   above   amount   an amount   of   Rs.2,50,000.00   and   Rs.25,000/­   were misappropriated   by   him   through   affording   of   credit   to   his current   Account   No.   P­51   and   Saving   Bank   A/c.   No.11068 favoring Smt. Rashmi Srivastava (his wife). To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents: PEX­15   –   Debit   voucher   dated   30.12.1994   for   Rs.5,30,000/­ pertaining to current account ledger no.2. PEX­16 – Current A/c day book dated 30.12.1994 PEX­17   –   Saving   bank   credit   voucher   dated   30.12.1994 Rs.25,000/­ pertaining to saving bank a/c no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi Srivastava. PEX­18 – Ledger sheet of saving bank a/c no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi Srivastava (page no.70/16). The charge is proved. Allegation/Charge No.5: On 30.05.1995, Shri Srivastava fraudulently raised a fake debit of   Rs.2,30,000   in   the   S.B.   A.C.   No.11068   fvg.   Smt.   Rashmi Srivastava (his wife) wherein no credit balance was available and credited to his current account No. P­51 with the above amount with a view to defraud the Bank. To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents: PEX­18 – Ledge sheet of saving bank a/c no.11068 PEX­19   –   Debit   voucher   dated   30.05.1995   for   Rs.2,30,000/­ pertaining to saving  bank account  no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi Srivastava 6 PEX­20   –   Current   A/c   credit   voucher   dated   30.05.1995 Rs.2,30,000/­   pertaining   to   current   a/c   no.   P­51   of   Smt. Srivastava.  PEX­21 – Saving bank daybook dated 30.05.1995 The charge is proved. Allegation/Charge No.6: On 31.05.1995, Shri Srivastava fraudulently raised a fake debit of   Rs.3,60,000   in   the   S.B.   A/c   No.11068   fvg.   Smt.   Rashmi Srivastava (his wife) wherein no credit balance was available and got   its   part   amount   of   Rs.3,00,000   credited   to   his   current account no.P­51 with a view to defraud the Bank. To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents: PEX­22   –   Current   A/c   credit   vouchers   dated   31.05.1995   for Rs.3,00,000/­ pertaining to current  a/c no. P­51 of Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava PEX­23 – Ledger sheet pertaining to saving bank a/c no.11068 PEX­24 – Ledger sheet pertaining to current a/c no. P­51. PEX­25 – Saving bank daybook dated 31.05.1995 PEX­26 – Current a/c daybook dated 31.05.1995 The charge is proved. Allegation/Charge No.7: On   20.10.1993,   Shri   Srivastava   borrowed   Rs.35,000.00   from Shri K.C. Miglani S.B. Account No.7547, an account holder at the branch without the permission of the Bank. To   prove   the   above   allegation/charge,   the   presenting   officer produced the following documents: PEX­25A – Photocopy of the ch. No.775157 dated 29.10.1993 for Rs.35,000/­ PEX­26A  – Saving  bank  credit  voucher  dated  29.10.1993  for Rs.35,000/­ pertaining to a/c no.7547 PEX­27   –   Debit   voucher   dated   20.10.1993   for   Rs.35,000/­ pertaining to saving bank a/c no.7547 of Shri K.C. Miglani. 7 PEX­28   –   Current   a/c   credit   vouchers   dated   20.10.1993   for Rs.35,000/­   pertaining   to   current   a/c   no.   P­51   of   Shri   Ajay Kumar Srivastava. The charge is proved. 7. After   copy   of   the   detailed   report   of   enquiry   was   made available,   the   disciplinary   authority   took   pains   to   revisit   the report of enquiry and while concurring with the finding of fact in reference   to   Charge   Nos.2­7   proved   by   the   enquiry   officer disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer as of charge no. 1 and assigning his reasons of disagreement held the Charge No.1 to be proved and served the copy of enquiry report th dated 29  June, 1999 along with his finding of disagreement(for charge no. 1) with the prima facie opinion based on the record of enquiry   to   the   respondent   delinquent   calling   for   his   written explanation.  8. The reply was submitted by the respondent in reference to th communication   made   by   the   disciplinary   authority   dated   29 June, 1999 raising objection to the note of disagreement which was recorded by the disciplinary authority as of Charge no. 1, at the same time, in reference to other Charge Nos. 2 to 7 which were   held   to   be   proved   and   prima   facie   accepted   by   the 8 disciplinary   authority,   no   specific   objection   was   raised   of   any prejudice being caused during the course of enquiry or defence in rebuttal  not  been   considered   by   the  enquiry   officer   or   of   any breach   of   the   procedure   prescribed   in   holding   disciplinary enquiry or violation of the principles of natural justice, raised vague   objections   of   general   in   nature   without   supporting   any documentary/oral   evidence   and   one   of   the   objection   of   the respondent delinquent was that there was no requirement to hold a disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case was instituted and pending   trial/investigation   by   the   CBI   and   the   conclusion   of departmental   enquiry   without   awaiting   the   outcome   of   the investigation/trial instituted against him in a pending criminal case, has caused great prejudice to him.  9. Despite no specific objection being raised by the respondent delinquent in reply to the show­cause notice, still the disciplinary authority revisited the record of enquiry including the enquiry report,   the   explanation   furnished   by   the   respondent   while affirming the finding by the enquiry officer in its report, confirmed its   prima­facie   opinion   which   he   has   expressed   in   his th communication   dated   29   June,   1999   and   in   terms   of   Para 9 521(5)(a) of the Sastry Award  read with Para 18, 28 of the Desai th th Award as modified by the 12   Bipartite Settlement dated 14 February, 1995 between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, confirmed the penalty of th dismissal from service by its order dated 24  July, 1999.  10. The respondent preferred departmental appeal against his dismissal from service. A bare perusal of the appeal preferred by the respondent would indicate that it was just a reflection of the general objection raised in reply to the show­cause notice with no specific averment in the appeal as to what was the procedural error   being   committed   by   the   enquiry   officer   in   holding disciplinary enquiry or of any violation of the principles of natural justice or any prejudice being caused to him of a kind during the course of enquiry or the action being bias or malafide initiated for certain   ulterior   reasons   if   any,   and   no   specific   objection   was raised in reference to the charge nos. 2­7 stands proved against him   other   than   general   objections   which   are   vague   and ambiguous without any foundation.  11. The   departmental   appeal   was   examined   by   the   appellate authority and taking note of the record of enquiry, the appellate 10 authority noticed the alleged objections raised by the respondent being so vague with no supporting foundation as reflected from para 2 of the order of the appellate authority and after going through   record   of   enquiry   and   taking   note   of   the   nature   of allegations levelled by the respondent delinquent in his appeal, the appellate authority assigned reasons in its order as reflected from para 3(i) to (viii) and finally holding the appeal having no merit and the punishment being commensurate to the charges levelled   against   him,   confirmed   the   punishment   of   dismissal which was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition before the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   filed   at   the   instance   of   the respondent delinquent. 12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court although has passed a detailed judgment but the  focus was throughout on charge no.1 which was not found to be proved by the enquiry officer in his report but the disciplinary authority recorded its note of disagreement which according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court has caused great prejudice and that apart, the disciplinary/appellate authority has passed a non­speaking order which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the 11 view expressed by the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   its   impugned th judgment   dated   13   September,   2018,   which   is   the   subject matter of challenge before us.  13. During   the   course   of   arguments,   it   was   brought   to   our notice that in the criminal case instituted against the respondent for offences under Sections  420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120­B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the respondent employee was held guilty and convicted by the learned Court of Special Judge, st CBI Court No. 1, Lucknow, by a judgment dated 31  May, 2019 and sentenced to ten year rigorous imprisonment with fine and in default to undergo imprisonment of three months. 14. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent delinquent in   the   course   of   enquiry   and   it   was   never   the   case   of   the respondent   that   either   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the disciplinary rules have not been followed or the enquiry was held by   the   authority   who   was   not   competent   under   law   or   the findings or conclusions which have been arrived at by the enquiry 12 Officer in his report and confirmed by the disciplinary authority are   not   supported   by   the   evidence   on   record   or   there   was   a violation   of   the   principles   of   natural   justice.     In   the   absence whereof,   the   plea   raised   by   the   respondent   holding   that   the disciplinary authority has passed a non­speaking order without application of mind lacks merit and is not substantiated from the material on record.   15. To the contrary, the Enquiry Officer in his detailed report recorded cogent reasons in holding the Charge nos. 2­7 proved against the delinquent employee.  The disciplinary authority while expressing   its   prima   facie   opinion   and   after   the   copy   of   the enquiry report along with the tentative view of the disciplinary authority being served and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent and having taken note of his written reply   into   consideration,   has   dealt   with   so   called   alleged objections   raised,   confirmed   its   tentative   view   expressed   in upholding   penalty   of   dismissal   from   service   after   assigning reasons supported by the documents on record.   In the given circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge confirmed in 13 LPA by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in law. 16. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Charge no. 1 is concerned, it is true that the enquiry officer has not found charge no. 1 proved but the disciplinary authority has recorded its   reasons   for   disagreement   while   expressing   a   prima   facie opinion, a copy of the note of disagreement recorded of charge no. 1 along with the report of enquiry was served on the delinquent employee,   no   justification   was   tendered   by   the   delinquent respondent   in   his   written   reply   to   the   note   of   disagreement recorded by the disciplinary authority.  Thus, a fair opportunity was afforded to him and taking assistance of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in   State of Orissa and Others 1  which was further considered by Vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra     this   Court   in   P.D.   Agrawal  Vs.  State   Bank   of   India   and 2   Others   , learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal based on the finding of Charge nos. 2­7, which were proved by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority   holds   the   respondent   delinquent   guilty   of   grave 1 AIR 1963 SC 779 2 2006(8) SCC 776 14 delinquency   in   upholding   the   penalty   of   dismissal   and interference in the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent   by   the   High   Court   was   not   justified   and   needs interference of this Court. 17. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the disciplinary authority reiterated the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his   report   and   failed   to   examine   the   record   of   enquiry independently and rejected the written objections raised by the respondent cursorily and inflicted penalty upon him of dismissal from   service   by   passing   a   non­speaking   order   without   due application of mind has been rightly interfered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 18. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   when   the   enquiry officer has not found charge no. 1 proved and the disciplinary authority   disagreed   with   the   finding   recorded   by   the   enquiry officer in his report, should have served in the first place, a note of disagreement, calling for his explanation and only thereafter it was open for him to examine the record of enquiry independently in taking its decision in accordance with law and the procedure 15 which was adopted by the disciplinary authority in holding the respondent guilty in reference to Charge no. 1 was not only a procedural error but is a great prejudice being caused to the respondent and such defect could not have been cured by the post­decisional hearing, which has been rightly upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment and needs no interference by this Court. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 20. At the outset, it may be noted that the enquiry officer has noticed   in   his   enquiry   report   that   the   respondent   delinquent neither produced any document nor witness in self­defence.   At the same time, he never requested to allow him to defend him by a   representative   of   his   choice.     He   further   stated   during   the course of enquiry that he neither wanted to say anything about the prosecution documents nor he wanted to ask any question to the   presenting   officer.     Taking   note   of   the   record   of   enquiry including the documents produced by the presenting officer, brief of the presenting officer, defence and the submission made by the respondent employee, the enquiry officer examined each of the 16 charge   nos.   1   to   7   and   after   detailed   analysis,   recorded   his finding in reference to each charge separately and found charge no. 1 not proved, at the same time charges nos. 2­7 were proved based on the documentary evidence placed on record. 21. The disciplinary authority, after the report of enquiry was furnished by the enquiry officer, took pains to revisit the record of enquiry including charge­sheet, reply to the charge­sheet, enquiry nd proceedings, findings of the enquiry officer dated 22  May, 1999, brief of the presenting officer, brief of the defence (respondent delinquent)   and   further   noticing   28   documents   which   were exhibited PEX­1 to PEX­28 relied by the presenting officer and taking note of the written submissions made by the respondent employee, after due application of mind recorded its finding in upholding the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in his report including the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1 holding to be proved.   The detailed reasons assigned in th confirming the order of penalty by its order dated 24  July, 1999 are as under:­ “O R D E R Staff: AWARD SRI AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CLERK 17 DISCIPLINARY ACTION     Placed   before   me   are   the   submissions/show   cause th notice dated the 15   July, 1999 of Shri A.K. Srivastava, Cashier­cum­Clerk, under suspension, presently posted at Daryaganj branch in respect of the Disciplinary Authority’s tentative order dated 29.6.1999 wherein it was decided to dismiss   him   without   notice   for   his   gross   misconduct relating   to   the   fraudulent   transactions   perpetrated   at Mumfordganj branch due to which the bank has suffered substantive loss in addition to loss of public image.  It was also decided that the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended   will   be   treated   as   such   and   no   salary   and allowance, except the subsistence allowance already paid, will be payable to him.  The above order was passed against him on the charges contained in the charge­sheet dated 11.4.1996   and   he   was   given   an   opportunity   to   make submissions, if any, against the above punishment within 7 days of its receipt, extended to 15 days on his request, failing which it would be deemed that he has nothing to submit in this regard and final order will be passed without any further reference to him. 2.   Shri A.K.  Srivastava  has submitted  that  it  is highly illegal to have passed the tentative order of dismissal dated 29.6.1999 on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer without seeking his comments thereon.   In his view, the report of the Enquiry Officer must have been forwarded to him for seeking his submissions, if any, which has not been done.  No such procedure is laid down followed in the bank to   forward   the   enquiry   report   to   the   charged   employees before   finalization   of   the   proposed   punishment.     The procedure   in   this   regard   has   been   followed   by   enquiry report and related documents have been forwarded to him along with the tentative order to enable him to submit his defence as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed on him as per the system and procedure in the bank. 3.  His allegation that prosecution documents had not been given to him earlier which deprived him of the reasonable opportunity of proving himself not guilty as not based on facts as all the documents had been made available to him for perusal/comments during the enquiry proceedings.  The copies of the enquiry proceedings had been given to him on the same day on the conclusion of the day’s proceedings and the allegation has no substance.  On the perusal of the page 16 and 17 of the enquiry proceedings, it is evident that 18 the Enquiry Officer had asked Shri Srivastava whether he wants to say anything regarding the prosecution documents to which he had replied in the negative, he had also stated that he will submit his defence brief within a week, for the receipt   of   the   prosecution   brief.     Likewise   the   Enquiry Officer has already clarified on the points raised by Shri Srivastava in his letter dated 10.11.1998 which has been found by myself­explicit and satisfactory. 4.   The   other   points   raised   by   Shri   Srivastava   in   his submission   dated   15.7.1999   sent   to   the   Disciplinary Authority as ‘show cause notice’ are found irrelevant after close scrutiny.  The enquiry started on 2.11.1997 and Shri Srivastava   neither   asked   any   document   not   desired   to produce   any   witnesses/defence   evidence,   during   the enquiry   proceeding   till   its   conclusion   on   12.5.1998. However, when he left that the prosecution has produced enough   evidences   as per   enquiry   proceedings   which  will prove   his   involvement   in   the   conspiracy   to   defraud   the bank, he started levelling the baseless allegations against the bank to delay the decision against him. 5.     I   have   perused   all   the   relevant   documents   again including the enquiry report, his letters dated 10.11.1998 and   15.12.1998   and   do   not   find   any   substance   for   re­ opening the enquiry as Shri Srivastava had already been given ample opportunity to defend himself.   The proposed punishment is commensurate to the charges levelled and proved against him as discussed in detail in tentative order. I, therefore, confirm my tentative order dated 29.6.1999 to dismiss Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava without notice in terms of para 521(5)(a) of the Sastry Award read with para 18,28 th of   the   Desai   Award   as   modified   by   the   12   Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995 made between State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation.  I also   order   that   the   period   spent   by   Shri   Srivastava   as suspended   be   treated   as   such   and   no   salary   and allowances, except the subsistence allowance already paid, will be payable to him. I order accordingly. Sd/­ ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER(IV) DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, th DATED: 24  July, 1999” 19 22. The   departmental   appeal   which   was   preferred   by   the respondent employee was revisited by the appellate authority and taking note of the objections, all have been separately dealt with th by the appellate authority in its order dated 15  November, 1999, the relevant portion of which is extracted as under:­ “3.   In   order   to   examine   the   aforesaid   points   by   the appellant, I have gone through the charge­sheets, reply of charge­sheets submitted by the charged employee, enquiry proceedings, findings of the Enquiry Officer, tentative order th th dated the 29  June, 1999, final order dated the 24  July, 1999, his service sheet and other relevant records of the case.  My views are as under:­ i) Almost all points raised by Shri Srivastava, as above, have been suitably replied in the Enquiry th Officer’s reply and in the final order dated the 24 July,   1999.     The   clarification   given   are   quite reasonable and I am satisfied with the same.  He was given full opportunity to defend himself and there was no ground for re­opening the enquiry. The charges contained in the charge­sheet were not vague, as alleged by him, and all the charges, except one, have been proved in the enquiry. ii) The   contention   of   Shri   Srivastava   that   the Enquiry Officer should be above the rank of the Disciplinary Authority, the officer who has issued the charge­sheet, is not correct.  The Disciplinary Authority should be above the rank of the Enquiry Officer who has been appointed by him for fact finding on his behalf. iii) There is no bar on initiation of the domestic enquiries, if the police/investigating agency do not submit their reports within a reasonable time and Supreme   Court   has   given   several   judgments   in this regard. 20 iv) The   Disciplinary   Authority   reviews   the pending   suspension   cases   and   can   order reinstatement   of   any   suspended   employee   after the review.  Two employees had been reinstated as the   charges   against   them   were   not   serious enough. v) The   charges   of   double   standards   and discriminatory   treatment   are   not   correct   as disciplinary   proceedings   have   been   initiated against all the erring employees/officers and the penalties have been imposed on the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report and due consideration of the malafide/bonafide conduct of the employees. Supplementary charge­sheets have already been served on some of the employees against whom penalties   have   been   imposed   on   the   basis   of earlier charge­sheets. vi) The   payment   of   suspension   period   has   not been made, in terms of their service rules, to any charge­sheeted   employee   and   none   has   been discriminated. vii) The  appellant  has  already  accepted  that  he prepared   to   take   vouchers   without   any   real cash/transfer   transaction   for   regularizing   his overdrawn   current   account   and   deposit   of fraudulently drawn amount partly cannot absolve him of perpetration of fraudulent transactions and none   had   promised   him   penalty   short   of dismissal. viii) Non­reply   of   his   letters/representations, meant   for   delay   in   the   domestic   enquiry   and resultant   punishment,   cannot   be   treated   as violation of natural justice.   The enquiry started on 30.11.1997 and he defended his case himself while other charged employees opted for defence representative.   It appears that he could not get any representative to defend his case in view of serious charges against him.   He neither asked 21 any   document   nor   desired   to   produce   any witness/defence   evidence   during   the   enquiry proceedings   till   its   conclusion   on   12.5.1998. When he felt that the prosecution has produced enough   evidences   as   per   enquiry   proceedings which will prove his involvement in the conspiracy to   defraud   the   bank,   he   started   levelling   the baseless allegations against the bank to delay the decision against him. 4. Thus, the points raised by Sri Srivastava in his appeal have no merit.  The punishment ordered by the Disciplinary Authority is commensurate to the charges levelled against him and the contention of the appellant does not hold good in view of the charges proved otherwise as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.   After careful consideration of the matter in its entirety, I am of the view that the Disciplinary Authority is fully justified in awarding the punishment of dismissal without notice and treating the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended as such and no payment of salary   and   allowances,   except   the   subsistence   allowance already paid, to him.   I, therefore, hold the order of the Disciplinary Authority. I order accordingly.”   23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries,   exercised   by   the   departmental/appellate   authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in  State 22 3   of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan    and later in  Government 4 and further examined   of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian     by the three Judge Bench of this Court in  B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. 5   wherein it has been held as under:­   Union of India and Others  

24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in   Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited 6   Vs. Mahesh Dahiya    and recently by the three Judge Bench of 7 this Court in  .   Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others   25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision­making 3 1994(6) SCC 302 4 1995(1) SCC 216 5 1995(6) SCC 749 6 2017(1) SCC 768 7 2020(9) SCC 471 23 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.   If  the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.  To sum up, 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. 26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii)   whether   the   findings   or   conclusions   are   based   on   some 24 evidence   and   authority   has   power   and   jurisdiction   to   reach finding of fact or conclusion. 27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary   authority,   on   receiving   the   report   of   enquiry,   the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental   enquiry   proceedings.     However,   the   only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must   be   established   by   such   evidence   acting   upon   which   a reasonable   person   acting   reasonably   and   with   objectivity   may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee.  It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot   sustain   the   finding   of   guilt   even   in   the   departmental enquiry proceedings. 25 29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence  to support  the  conclusion arrived  at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 30. In the case on hand, the charge­sheet was served upon the respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he was serving (Mumfordganj Branch) during the relevant period.   In all, 7 charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his official duty and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent delinquent and due compliance of the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer in his report while dealing with the preliminary objections raised by the respondent delinquent specifically indicated that the details of enquiry report contained 26 22   pages   along   with   documents   produced   by   the   presenting officer   marked   as   PEX­1   to   PEX­28   to   establish   the allegations/charges   levelled   against   the   respondent   delinquent who neither produced any document nor witness in his defence. It was further indicated that the respondent stated in the course of   enquiry   that   he   neither   wants   to   say   anything   about   the prosecution document nor he wants to ask any question to the presenting   officer   and   never   requested   to   seek   permission   to defend the representative of his choice. 31. After affording an opportunity of hearing at the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, along with the written note submitted by the presenting officer and by the respondent delinquent, the enquiry officer marshalled the record of enquiry and based on the documentary   evidence   produced   by   the   presenting   officer   in reference to each charge recorded a finding in holding charge no.1 not   proved   and   charges   nos.   2­7   stood   proved   against   the delinquent respondent. 32. It was later revisited by the disciplinary authority and apart from the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1, the disciplinary authority accepted the finding of fact recorded by the 27 enquiry officer in his report for charge nos. 2 to 7 and with its prima facie opinion, called upon the respondent to submit his explanation and after affording an opportunity of hearing and dealing   with   the   objections   raised   by   the   respondent   in   his written   reply   expressed   its   brief   reasons   while   upholding   the finding   recorded   by   the   enquiry   officer   in   his   report   and confirmed   its   opinion   of   inflicting   penalty   of   dismissal   from th service by order dated 24  July, 1999 and the appellate authority also   later   revisited   on   the   appeal   being   preferred   and   after assigning reasons confirmed the finding of fact in upholding the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. 33. The   submission   which   persuaded   the   High   Court   in   the impugned judgment is basically for two reasons. Firstly, before the finding of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge no. 1, fair opportunity of hearing was   not   afforded   to   the   respondent   delinquent   and   that   has caused   prejudice   to   him.     Secondly,   the   disciplinary authority/appellate   authority   has   not   examined   the   record   of disciplinary enquiry independently and passed a non­speaking order without due application of mind and this what prevailed 28 upon the High Court in the impugned judgment in setting aside the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. 34. The submission which was made in regard to the note of disagreement not being served upon the respondent delinquent as to Charge no. 1 is concerned, this Court do find substance to hold that  the  disciplinary  authority  on receiving  the  report of enquiry, if was not in agreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the   first   place   before   recording   his   finding   of   guilt   and indisputedly the procedure as prescribed by law was not followed and that has caused prejudice to the respondent and indeed it was in violation of the principles of natural justice.  We are of the considered view that so far as the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge No. 1 is concerned, that could not be held to be justified in holding him guilty.   35. But this may not detain us any further for the reason that Charge no. 1 in reference to which the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has been overturned by the disciplinary authority is   severable   from   the   other   charges(Charge   nos.   2­7)   levelled 29 against the respondent which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer   and   the   finding   of   fact   was   confirmed   by   the disciplinary/appellate   authority   after   meeting   out   objections raised by the respondent delinquent in his written brief furnished at different stages. 36. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded   by   the   Enquiry   Officer   in   his   report   in   reference   to charges   nos.2­7   and   confirmed   by   the   disciplinary/appellate authority   was   not   liable   to   be   interfered   and   those   findings established the guilt of grave delinquency which, in our view, was an   apparent   error   being   committed   by   the   High   Court   while interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent employee. 37. It is supported by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in   State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra  (supra) wherein it has been observed as under:­

30

38. This was further considered by this Court in  Binny Ltd. Vs. 8   as under:­   Workmen  

8 1972(3) SCC 806 31

39. Yet again, in   Sawarn Singh and Another Vs. State of 9   Punjab and Others   , this Court held:­

40. The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that even after the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of penalty, the Court may not exercise its power of judicial review. 9 AIR 1976 SC 232 32 41. So far as the submission which has prevailed upon the High Court holding that the order passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was a non­speaking order passed with non­application of mind, in our considered view, is not factually supported by the material available on record. 42. In  the case on  hand,  the disciplinary/appellate  authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the th order dated 24  July, 1999, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry, including self­contained enquiry nd report dated 22   May, 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated th 29    June, 1999 which was made available to the respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and th penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24   July, 1999.   That apart, the appeal preferred by  the  respondent  delinquent  was examined  by  the  appellate  authority as it reveals under para 3(i) to (viii) in upholding the finding   of   guilt   recorded   by   the   enquiry   officer   in   his   report dismissing   the   respondent   employee   from   service,   rejected   by 33 th order dated 15   November, 1999.   After detailed discussion, we are   unable   to   accept   the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   which   deserves   to   be   set aside. 43. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a   sine qua   for   every   bank   employee.     It   requires   the   employee   to non maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired.  It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of th dismissal of the respondent dated 24   July, 1999 confirmed in th departmental appeal by order dated 15  November, 1999. 44. Consequently,   the   appeals   deserve   to   succeed   and   are accordingly   allowed   and   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court th impugned dated 13   September, 2018 is hereby set aside.   No costs.    34 45. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………….………………………….J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ……………..…………………………J. (HEMANT GUPTA) ……………………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI JANUARY 05, 2021 35