TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f which one of us is a member) in DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND ORS. VERSUS AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [ 2021 (1) TMI 1312 - SUPREME COURT] . Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the Division Bench has proceeded on the premise that the responsibility was of the Branch Manager along with the Assistant Manager(Cash). Hence, the respondent could not have been held responsible for the lapses of those officers and proceeding on the said foundation, set aside the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent but the record of enquiry clearly manifests that it was a factual error being committed by the High Court while setting aside the domestic inquiry and the consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interfering with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent delinquent and being unsustainable deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed. - Ajay Rastogi And Abhay S. Oka, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Adv., Mr. Nusrat Ali Siddiqi, Adv., Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR, Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv, Mr. Firasat Ali Siddi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Bhardwaj, being one of the joint custodians of cash, did not arrange to remit the surplus cash on 10.11.1999 to Currency Chest, Belanganj Branch, Agra even though there was huge cash balance much more than the average, anticipated daily requirement. Thus, he did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. 3. Before leaving the branch on 10.11.1999 after close of cash, Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj did not check about the closure of one rear gate between the main hall and passage towards toilet of Sewla Branch, Agra which was left unlocked/opened on 10.11.99. Thus, he did not take take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. 4. Mr. Bhardwaj did not maintain the key register for noting the transfer of keys from one holder to another. He himself along with Chief Cashier had not signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Charge No. 1 Findings of the Inquiry Officer : I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. DR/C.S.0. and my findings in this regard are as under: Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry proceedings by the concerned parties, I concur with the arguments advanced and facts established by the Presenting Officer, who has established the facts relating to charge No. 1 on the basis of ME 2/ 1 to 5, ME 6/1 2, ME 10,, ME 10/1 2, ME 11, ME 3, ME 13, ME12, ME 14, ME 15, ME 20, ME 27, DE 30, DE 31/1 2, DE 32, ME 1/5, ME 23, ME24, DE 2/1to15. I, therefore, hold that charge No. 1 stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, C.S.O. Charge No. 3 Findings of the Inquiry Officer : I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. and DR/CSO and my findings in this regard are as under: Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry proceedings by the concerned parties, I concur with arguments advanced and facts established by the Presenting Officer, who has established the facts relating to charge No. 3 on the basis of documentary evidence, namely, ME 3, ME 12, ME 13, ME 14, ME 15, ME 16, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Inquiry Officer and after due compliance of principles of natural justice, inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service vide Order dated 31st December, 2001 with disqualification for future employment. 9. The order of the disciplinary authority came to be challenged by the respondent in the departmental appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after revisiting the record of inquiry, found justification in the submissions made by the respondent delinquent with regard to charge No. 3 but so far as the finding in reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 is concerned, the appellate authority concurred with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority in exercise of power under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976 and modified the punishment by its Order dated 23rd December, 2002, the extract of which is as under: I, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me as Appellate Authority, and in terms of Regulation 17 of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, as amended, pass the following Order : Charge No. 1 Proved Shri K.K. Bhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent delinquent was the custodian of cash(keeping the keys of the cash safe/strong room in an almirah in the stationery room overnight) and not keeping the same in his personal custody as per rules of the Bank, he did not take appropriate steps against the staff who was reportedly keeping overnight safety of the keys of the chest in the Branch itself which was a gross negligence which he had committed in discharge of his duties as a Manager of the Branch and for his supervisory negligence, after charge sheet dated 17th December, 1999 came to be served, he too was held guilty for his supervisory negligence which he had committed in discharge of his duties and was punished by an Order dated 28th February, 2002. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that for the gross misconduct which the respondent had committed in discharge of his duties, the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations 1976 and it was never the case of the respondent either before the departmental authorities or before the High Court that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the scheme of Regulations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with their assistance. 18. 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 136 of the Constitution of India is well 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 earlier been examined by this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others [1995(6) SCC 749]; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya [2017(1) SCC 768] and recently by a three Judge Bench of this Court(of which one of us is a member) in Deputy General Manager(Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava [2021(2) SCC 612] wherein this Court has held as under: 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile 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 mala fides 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 those 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. 19. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the Division Bench has proceeded on the premise that the responsibility was of the Branch Manager along with the Assistant Manager(Cash). Hence, the respondent could not have been held responsible for the lapses of those officers and proceeding on the said foundation, set aside the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent but the record of enquiry clearly manifests that it was a factual error being committed by the High Court while setting aside the domestic inquiry and the consequential punishment inflicted upon the respondent delinquent. 20. In the course of enquiry, a documenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade before the High Court also and it deserves no consideration except rejection. 24. So far as the submission regarding non supply of document is concerned, inquiry officer has observed that the record which was demanded by the respondent delinquent was made available to him except the one which was confidential in nature still he was permitted for inspection. At the same time, the respondent failed to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him in reference to the alleged non supply of the documents demanded by him. 25. The further submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the decision of the disciplinary/appellate authority being a non speaking and cryptic in nature is concerned, it is a sorry state of affairs to say so that both the orders of the disciplinary/appellate authority are on record and cogent reasons have been assigned while concurring with the finding of the inquiry officer in order of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority also, after due appreciation of the record of inquiry and confirmed by the disciplinary authority, arrived to the conclusion that the finding recorded in reference to charge No. 3 is not proved and held charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
