Abhiram Samal vs Indian Bank And Others

Dr. A.K.Mishra, J

In this writ appeal the unsuccessful appellant has assailed the judgment dated 16.04.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 7848 of 2009 declining to interfere in the

disciplinary proceeding and the order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement.

The appellant-petitioner was appointed as an officer of the Indian Bank. In the year 2006 he was working as Inspecting Manager at Kolkata

Office. His duty was to conduct inspection of various branches under Kolkata region. On 20.07.2006 he was entrusted with the inspection of banks at

Cuttack, Chhatrapur and Saudia branches. It is alleged that instead of staying at Bhubaneswar for inspection of Chhatrapur and Saudia branches, he

stayed at Cuttack and submitted T.A. Bill for lodging at Hotel Neeladri, Mangalabag, Cuttack from 10.1.2006 to 22.2.2006. He claimed Rs. 42,000/-

towards hotel room rent charges. The irregularity committed in T.A. Bill submitted on 24.3.2006 was detected and, explanation was called for on

20.7.2006 by the Deputy General Manager (Inspection Centre), Kolkata. The appellant submitted his explanation on 24.7.2006, stating that he stayed

at hotel as per his eligibility for smooth conduct and timely completion of the assigned job. On 18.12.2006 second explanation was called for, to which

reply was submitted on 25.1.2007 by the appellant-petitioner denying such allegation. Without appreciating the explanation given by the appellant-

petitioner, articles of charge dated 6.6.2007 was served alleging dishonest misconduct under Regulation 3(1) of the Indian Bank Officer

Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (to be referred hereinafter as “Conduct Regulation, 1976â€). The appellant was also served with

statement of imputation and list of documents basing upon which articles of charge were framed. On 25.6.2007 written statement was filed by the

appellant. Being dissatisfied, an enquiry was ordered. One Senior Manager, namely, R.Chakrapani was appointed as Enquiring Officer. Evidence was

adduced. On 24.3.2008 inquiry report was submitted holding that charge nos. 1 and 2 were proved. The copy of the inquiry report was communicated

to the appellant, calling upon him to give explanation. The appellant-petitioner replied that, Enquiring Authority had transgressed its limitation drawing

conclusion by his wild imagination and suspicion. The Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement on 15.5.2008.

The appellant preferred appeal under Regulation 17 (1) of the Conduct Regulation, 1976. The appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2008. Review petition

was filed before the Reviewing Authority on 1.12.2008. The review was dismissed on 17.4.2009. The said order was assailed in the writ petition,

order of which is impugned here. The learned Single Judge on consideration of facts and law raised by the parties held that the entire episode of

inspection of banks at Chhatrapur and Cuttack branches having held within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent finding of facts given by the enquiry authority, appellate authority and

reviewing authority could not be interfered with in absence of any procedural irregularities. The power of judicial review to scan the evidence, which

had reached finality on the basis of concurrent finding, was found uncalled for in the facts placed and law analyzed. Accordingly, learned Single Judge

declined to interfere with in the punishment imposed upon the appellant- petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding conducted under the Conduct

Regulation, 1976.

The judgment of learned Single Judge is challenged on the ground that when domestic inquiry has contravened the principle of natural justice and

the evidence available before the inquiry authority was not considered in proper perspective, the learned Single Judge has committed error by not

interfering with the order imposing penalty, which is not commensurate with the allegation of misconduct. In support of his contention Mr. Mohanty,

learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment in the case of P.Arumugam Vs. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of Mysore and

Ors, W.A. No. 1144 of 2011 and W.P. No. 1178 of 2012, decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on

26.2.2016.

4-a. Opposite parties 1 to 4 have filed counter affidavit stating that the writ jurisdiction against the concurrent finding and imposition of penalty in a

domestic inquiry is very limited and the evidence cannot be reassessed as an Appellate Authority.

In this writ appeal at hand the issue is: - whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that no judicial review is permissible to sit as an Appellate

Authority over the concurrent finding of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and review authority is correct?

In the cited decision of P.Arumugam case (supra), it has been held as follows:-

“15. The role of this Court over a decision made by the disciplinary authority is well known. Thus, this Court is concerned with the decision making process

involving violation of principles of natural justice, non application of mind and perversity. These are few of the factors required for exercising the power of

judicial review. Similarly in a departmental proceeding, the charge has to be proved against the delinquent officer on preponderance of probabilities. It is not for

the delinquent officer to disprove the charges leveled.â€​

While reiterating the law in the above manner, the Hon’ble Judges found in the facts and circumstances of the case that no reason was assigned

while accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and cryptic order was passed by the disciplinary authority.

6-a. In the case at hand, all the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and review authority are found to have been supported by

reason. The appellant could not show any procedural irregularity in conducting enquiry. The violation of natural justice is not shown, so also any error

apparent on the record is found by us. In such premises, the jurisdiction of writ court for issuance of writ of certiorari is very much limited. In the case

of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the scope and ambit of certiorari

jurisdiction and jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev

Rai (supra) has been overruled by a larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in-part on a different count, in the case of Radhey

Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423. In the case of Surya Dev Rai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution is also maintainable against the order passed by the Civil Court in a proceeding arising

out of dispute between two private parties. In the case of Radhey Shyam and another (supra) has partly followed the ratio decided in Surya Dev Rai

vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. regarding the distinction between the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of issuing

writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Thus, it is clear that writ of certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e., when a

subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction- by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or

(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction- by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction , or

(iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure

specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.

In the wake of the above analysis, the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is found to have support of law and facts. Interference is

uncalled for.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

....…………………..