ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. versus KRISHNA NARAYAN TEWARI

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 02-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] I S.C.R. 389 
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. 
v. 
KRISHNA NARAYAN TEWARl 
(Civil Appeal No. 7600 of20 14) 
JANUARY 02,2017 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.J 
Service Law : Disciplinary enquiry - High Court~ power to 
interfere -
Respondent-employee removed from service by 
Disciplinary Authority - Departmental appeal by respondent 
dismissed by Appe//ate Authority - High Court noted that neither 
Disciplinary Authority nor Appellate Authority applied their mind 
nor recorded reasons in support of their conclusions - It quashed 
the order of punishment and directed release of service benefits -
On appeal, held: 11 is true that a writ court is very slow in illlerfering 
with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on 
the basis of evidence on record - But, it is equally true that in a 
case where Disciplinary Authority records a finding unsupported 
by any evidence or a finding which no reasonable person could 
arrive at, the writ court is justified to examine·the matler and grant 
relief.,.. In the instant case, Disciplinary Authority did not appreciate 
the evidence properly or recorded reasons in· support of its 
conclusion - Appellate Authority instead of recording its own 
reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, 
simply reproduced the findings of Disciplinary Authority- Therefore, 
High Court was right in interfering with order of dismissal -
Respondent elllitled to continuity of service till the date of his 
superannuation, however with only 500A of the salary for the period 
between the date of his removal till the dale of superannuation -
Writ jurisdiction- Constitution of India- Art.226. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Practice and Procedure: Procedural lapse i11 conducting 
enquiry ill service matters - Held: Proper course is to remand the 
G 
molters bock Jo concerned authority for fresh enquiry - However, 
such a course is not justified in situatiolls where due to Jo11g time 
lag or such other supervening circumstances directing.fr.esh enquiry 
would be unfair. harsh or othenvise un11ecessary. 
, · . . ., . · 
389 
H 
390 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 7] I S.C.R. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. lt is true that a writ court is very slow in 
interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental 
Authority on the basis of evidem:e available on record. But it is 
equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority 
records a ftndlng that is unsupponed by any evidence whatsoever 
or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, 
the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the 
matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will 
certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders 
passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry 
itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural 
justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-
application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary 
Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion 
arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are 
justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High 
Court, in tbe present case, found all these infirmities in the order 
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 
The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without 
giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in 
defense has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More 
importantly the Disciplinary Authority did not properly appreciate 
the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. 
The Appellate Authority instead of recording its own reasons and 
independently appreciating the material un record, simply 
reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry 
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority 
faltered in the disdtarge of their duties resulting in miscarriage 
of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering 
with the orders pa~sed hy the Discirlinary Authority and the 
Appellate Authority. (Para 7) (394·G·H; 395-A·D) 
l. In cases where High Court finds the enquiry to be 
deficient either procedurally or otherwise the proper course 
always is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority. 
But that course may not be the only course open in a given 
situation. There may be situati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.