LexBANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus T. JOGRAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-·
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
ll.
T.JOGRAM
AUGUST 2, 2007
[H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
.,
Service law:
Bank of India Officer, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, I976:
Regulations 3 and 24-Misconduct--Compulsory retirement-Officer
A
B
c
of the Bank found guilty of submitting inflated and false bills claiming
travelling, boarding and lodging expenses and halting al/owance-
Compulsorily retired from service-Held, Single Judge of High Court was
right in holding that order of compulsory retirement was passed based on D
material available on record and the charges leveled were proved against
-{
the delinquent.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226-Judicial review of orders passed in disciplinary
·
E
proceedings-Judgment of Single Judge upholding the order passed by
disciplinary authority and appellate authority reversed by Division Bench of
High Court in appeal-Propriety of-Held: Judicial review is not against the
decision but the decision making process-On facts, there is no al~egation
of procedural irregularities/illegality nor is there any allegation of violation
of principles of natural justice-Order of Division Bench of High Court being F
unsustainable In law is set aside and that of Single Judge is restored-
Principles of Natural ,Justice.
The respondent, a Junior Management OfTacer Scale-I in the appellant
Bank, was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement after a disciplinary
inquiry into the charges aga~nst him that while on deputation he submitted G
inflated and false bills claiming travelling expenses, lodging and boarding
charges antt hlting allowance. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed
by Single Judge of the High Court by a reasoned judgment. However, the
Division Bench, in the intra-court appeal, having allowed the writ petition of
763
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 8 S.C.R.
A the Jelinquent officer, the Bank filed the instant appeal.
B
c
It was contended for the appellant that there was no allegation of
procedural irregularities or illegality or violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry which required the Division Bench of tbe
High Court to upset the well reasoned order of the Single Judge by way of
judicial review; and that the Division Bench was wrong, in re-appreciating
the entire evidence and could not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer and assume the role of the appellate authority.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:l.1. By now it is a well-settled principle of law that judicial review
is not against the decision; it is against the decision making process. In the
instant case, there are no allegations of procedural irregularities/illegality
nor is there any violation of principles of natural justice. The allegation of
malafide was not substantiated. It is a well settled law that the allegation of
D malafide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. 1t should be based on
factual matrix. [Para 15) (770-B, CJ ·
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Regional
Manager, U.P.SRTC v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 S<:;C 605, relied on.
E
Union Bank of India v. Vish";a Mohan, [1998) 4 SCC 310, Apparel
Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, [1999) 1 SCC 759, Un!on of India
v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. Mis M & N
Publications Ltd, [1993) 1 SCC 445, State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K.
Sharma, [1~96) 3 SCC 364, DelfJi Development Authority v. VEE Electricals
Engg.(P) Ltd, (2004) 11 SCC 213 and Chairman and Managing Director,
F
Unite,dCommercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003) 4 SCC 364, cited.
1.2. As regards the plea ofviolation of principles of naturai justice on
the ground that the documents required by the respondent were not supplied
to the respondent, from the averment it is seen that the documents, which
G were sought to be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted
by the respondent himself before the authority. In these circumstanct;s, no
prejudice whatsoever was caused to the respondent. [Para 15) [770-C, DJ
1.3. The charge against the respondent was violation of Regulation 3(1)
of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The
H Regulation require that every officer employee shall at all times take all
>--
•
BANK OF INDIA v. T. JOGRAM [H.K. SEMA, J.]
765
possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge A
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.