BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus DEGALASURYANARAYANA

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 12-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

IA I 
',, 
BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
'" 
DEGALASURYANARAYANA 
1= .r 
• ,· 
JULY 12, 1999 
''. ~·J,w#·•tf 
.. 
~·"'" 
1, 
~~J~1w 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. J,,AH<;>TI, JJ.] L· 
Service Law: 
l;·,,, ''
1
D~pcirtinental Enquiry-Findings of the Enquiry Officer-Discipiinary 
C Authority holding a different view-Held-disciplinary Authority in case of 
disagreement has to record the reasons for disagreement and record its own 
findings if the evidence available on record is sufficient for such exercise or 
to remit to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and report-Strict rules of 
evidence not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. 
D 
Promotion~ealed cover Procedure-A well established concept in 
service jurisprudence-Respondent found fit for promotion by DPC but 
promotion withheld on account of pendency of criminal cases on the date of 
DPC's decision-Criminal cases ending in acquittal but subsequently 
departmental enquiry initiated -Held : Promotion due in the past could not 
E be withheld on the ground of initiation of departmental enquiry at a later 
point of time. 
Misconduct-Findings recorded by disciplinary Authority-Whether 
subject to Judicial review-Held: Findings of Disciplinary Authority immune 
from interference-High Court exceeded the bounds of power of judicial 
F review available to it while exercising writ jurisdiction over a departmental 
disciplinary enquiry proceedings--Constitution of India, Art. 226. 
Respondent was working in Middle Management Grade III in the 
appellant Bank and was found fit for promotion in 1981. A complaint was 
G made to CBI against him alleging certain misappropriation. He was 
interv_iewed for promotion in the year 1981-82 but sealed cover procedure 
was followed on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. In the year 
1983 two criminal cases were filed by C.B.I. against him. He was again 
considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.1.86 but the same was not given effect to 
on account of pendency of criminal cases. He was acquitted of all the charges 
H · but order of promotion was not issued. Being aggrieved Respondent filed 
824 
.. 
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA 
825 
Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court by an interim order in the A 
said writ petition directed that Respondent be promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 
1.1.86 and granted liberty to the appellant to enquire into the matter 
departmentally. On 3.12.91 a charge sheet was issued to the Respondent 
alleging commission of misconduct by him. Enquiry Officer recorded a 
fmding that nine of the charges levelled against him was proved. Disciplinary B 
Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 
one of the charges and after issuing show c1mse notice found the Respondent 
guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment of reduction of pay by one 
stage. High Court held that the disciplinary authority's finding was too 
perverse and set aside the punishment and also that Resp~ndent was entitled 
to promotion even earlier to 1.1.86 and directed to regularise his promotion C 
from that date. 
Before· this court the question which arose for consideration was 
whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the fmdings recorded 
by the Disciplinary Authority in reversal of ~he findings record_ed by the 
~~~~ 
D 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The Disciplinary Authority on receiving the report of the 
Enquiry Offi~er may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the 
latter. In cas'e of disagreement the Disciplinary Authority h.as to record the E 
reasons for disagreement and record ·his own findings if the evitlence on 
record is sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the Enquiry 
Officer for further enquiry and report. [831-F] 
, · '' 
2. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry 
proceedings. The. only requirement of law is that the allegation against the F 
delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which 
a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a 
finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. 
Mere conjectures or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in 
departmental enquiry proceedings. [831-G-H] 
" G 
3. The finding so recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was immune 
from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review available 
to the court and therefore, the High Cou

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