TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was concluded: In view of the facts stated above we are of the view that both the joint custodian i.e. Shri H.C. Grover - Manager, presently posted at BO Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Shri P.C. Gupta - AM are responsible for the loss of the drawing book since either of the two have remained one of the custodians from 1.6.93 to 24.8.93. The loss of drawing book could have been avoided had they taken due care and precaution. Further, Shri Sharad Narain, Sr. Manager is also responsible as he has failed to ensure compliance of laid down instructions in respect of monthly checking of security forms and also for non-submission of M.C. after 31.5.93. In the said report, various procedural lapses on the part of some officers of the Bank were also pointed out. 3. After five years of the said incidence, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant stating that during the period 18.11.1991 and 9.10.1993, he had taken away one blank draft issue book bearing No. 626401 to 626425. A show-cause notice was issued. Cause was shown by him. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. In the said proceeding, reliance was placed on the purported confession of the appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranch Saharanpur and encashed on branch Khalsi Lines Saharanpur. 4. Arresting of culprits namely K.K. Gupta, Rajbir, Ashok Kumar, Ravinder Pal Singh, Kante Gupta and Harvinder alias Billa with the remaining pages of the draft book by the Thane Mysori (Ghaziabad) police. 5. Stealing of draft book bearing no. 626401 to 626425 and other documents from branch Mall Road Delhi. 6. First draft was issued on 24.8.93 from the stolen draft book which fact came to the knowledge of Mall Road Delhi Branch from the Central Bank of India Branch Officer. 7. Before 9.10.1993 Shri Roop Singh Negi was posted in the Mall Road Delhi Branch. 8. Bank Security Form Department is out of reach of non-bank employees/outsiders. It was purported to have been found: 1. Stealing of drawing book and specimen signatures of officers happened before 24.8.93. 2. The factum of stealing the drafts came to the knowledge on 24.11.93 while the same was done on 24.8.93. Draft book has been stolen from Security Form Department in such a manner which fact has come to the knowledge very late. Possibly this draft book has been taken away available at the last serial nos. of the draft books. 3. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was dismissed, opining: In view of the above, the submissions made by the appellant in his appeal dated 23.02.2001 and his verbal submissions made during personal hearing are devoid of merits. As such I find no reasons to interfere or alter the order of Disciplinary Authority. Thus keeping in view the nature and gravity of the proven charges, punishment of Dismissal from Bank Service , imposed upon Shri Negi by Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 24.01.2001 is hereby confirmed and appeal of Shri Negi is rejected. 7. The appellate authority also did not apply his mind to the contentions raised by the appellant; no reason was assigned in support of his conclusion. On what evidence, the appellant was found guilty was not stated. 8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, the appellant filed a Writ Petition. The same by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed, stating: ...The writ jurisdiction can be exercised by this court only in exceptional circumstances which have not been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition. However, once the petition was admitted for hearing in exercise of the writ jurisdiction after a lapse of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent Bank or its officers call for no interference by this court and as such there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed accordingly. 10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which dealt with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charges in question is proved against the respondent ? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance is well-founded because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit in the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence. 12. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 484], this Court held: 17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of the principles of natural justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454] (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India and Ors. v. Kalyan Kumar Mitra and Ors. 1987 (2) Cal. LJ 344. (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. [See Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain (1969) 1 SCR 735, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10]. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent therein had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. Appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a Writ Petition questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and necessary should have been as to whether some evidence adduced would lead to the conclusion as regard the guilt of the delinquent officer or not. The evidence adduced on behalf of the management must have nexus with the charges. The Enquiry Officer cannot base his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipso dixit on his part cannot be a substitute of evidence. 45. The findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that 'it is established with the conscience (sic) of the Court reasonably formulated by an Enquiry Officer then in the eventuality' may not be fully correct inasmuch as the Court while exercising its power of judicial review should also apply its mind as to whether sufficient material had been brought on record to sustain the findings. The conscience of a court may not have much role to play. It is unfortunate that the learned Single Judge did not at all deliberate on the contentions raised by the appellant. Discussion on the materials available on record for the purpose of applying the legal principles was imperative. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed the same error. 15. Yet again in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India ors. (2006) 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
