Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAI BARELI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHOLA NATH SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MAMOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made on
April 19,1996 in writ Petition no. 10200/90.
The admitted position is that the respondent, while
working as cashier-cum-clerk in the appellant Bank, was
charged with the allegation that he had fraudulently
withdrawn a sum of Rs. 28,500/- on different dates from the
saving accounts of different account holders by forging the
bank records and signatures of the saving bank account
holders. A charge sheet was served upon him to which the
respondent gave his reply. An enquiry was conducted in which
he did not participate. Proceedings were conducted ex-parte.
Then, the enquiry officer, after detailed examination of the
evidence adduced, recorded findings that the respondent was
guilty of misconduct for forgery of the signatures and for
fraudulent withdrawal of the amounts. Accordingly, he
submitted his report. The disciplinary authority on April
17, 1989 had given the respondent a show cause notice as to
why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on
him. The respondent submitted his reply there to on April
11, 1990. On consideration thereof, the disciplinary
authority imposed the punishment of the dismissal from
service. In appeal, the Board had considered the entire
record and confirmed the order dismissing the respondent
from service. The respondent , thereafter, filed the writ
petition in the High court. The learned judge has gone into
the merits of the matter and found that the charges have not
been proved. Ultimately, he quashed the punishment of
dismissal from service. Thus, this appeal by special leave,
Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General,
has contended that the procedure adopted by the leaned Judge
is not correct in law. Even the writ petition was not
maintainable because the alternative remedy of adjudication
under the Industrial Disputes Act is Available. Therefore,
the order of the learned single Judge is vitiated by error
of law. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel for
respondent, contends that all the steps taken by the enquiry
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
officer in conducting enquiry were not in accordance with
law. The Branch Manager has admitted in a letter that he is
responsible for the withdrawal of the amounts; the
respondent was made a scapegoat; the hand writing expert was
not examined in the enquiry and, therefore, there is no
admissible evidence to show that the respondent had forged
the signatures of the account holders and withdrawn the
amount. His application to summon the witness and to cross
examine them was denied violating the principles of natural
justice. The High court, therefore, was right in holding
that the charges have not been proved against the respondent
beyond doubt.
Having regard to the respective contentions, the only
question that arises for consideration is: whether the
conclusion reached by the High court is correct in law? It
is not in dispute that the procedural steps under the
disciplinary rules, required by the appellant, have been
followed. After the enquiry was concluded and report was
submitted, the disciplinary authority had given him a show
cause notice to the proposed punishment and the respondent
also submitted his explanation. After consideration of the
report and the reply, the punishment of dismissal was
imposed by the disciplinary authority against which an
appeal was filed. At that stage, he made an application for
summoning the witnesses afresh. That application was
dismissed by the appellate authority. That order also was
allowed to become final. The appeal was dismissed by the
Board.
Under these circumstances, the question arises: whether
the High Court would be correct in law to appreciate the
evidence and the manner in which the evidence as examined
and to record a finding in the behalf? The judicial review
is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an
appellate authority. The High court, in the proceedings
under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but
exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct
errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest
injustice or voidation of principles of natural justice. In
this case, no such errors were pointed out nor any finding
in that behalf was recorded by the High court. On the other
hand, the High Court examined the evidence as if it is a
Court of first appeal and reversed the finding of fact
recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by disciplinary
authority. Under these circumstances, the question of
examining the evidence, as was done by the High Court, as a
first appellate court, is wholly illegal and cannot be
sustained.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High court
and allow the appeal. consequently, the order of dismissal
stands upheld. No costs.