LexCHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ORS. versus P.C. KAKKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ORS. i v. ~-- P.C. KAKKAR B FEBRUARY 11, 2003 [SHIVARAJ V. PA TlL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Service Law: c United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal; "egulation, 1976-Misconduct by employee-Disciplinary proceedings-Passing of dismissal order-Employee challenging quantum of punishment-High Court having found charges established interfering with the quantum of punishment-Justification of-Held, the High Court erred in D interfering with the quantum of punishment since the punishment imposed did not shock the conscience of the Court and High Court did not record any reason for finding the punishment shockingly disproportionate-Also the charges against the employee were ~erious in nature and not casual-Hence matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration only with regard to quantum of punishment. ,... E Employer-bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against employee. It found charges of misconduct established against employee and passed dismissal order. Aggrieved employee's appeal and also review application were dismissed. Employee then filed writ petition challenging the quantum F of punishment which was lesser in a similar situation where allegations against the employee were of much serious nature. High Court found the charges established and accepted the plea of the employee and directed the reinstatement, depriving him of 75% of salary for the period from the date of removal to date of reinstatement. Hence the present appeals. G Employer-Bank contended that employer after having found that the charges were established and also there was no challenge to the findings before the High Court, the High Court committed an error in interfering with the quantum of punishment; that some of the charges were of very serious nature and one of the charges related to fabricating and }- H manipulation of records; that even if a co-delinquent has been given .lesser 1034 CHAIRMAN & MANA. DIRECTOR. UNITED COMMER. BANK 1·. P.C KAKKAR } 03 5 punishment, same cannot be a ground for interference and that the A employee was acting as Assistant Manager in the Bank and committed the acts of misconduct and taking into account the higher standard of honesty and integrity required by such employees any interference \Vith the quantum of punishment would amount to misplaced sympathy. Employee contended that there was no embezzlement or fraud and there was no loss caused to the Bank; that the allegations of fictitious entries were found not to have been established in a criminal case which was initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the employee was acquitted of the charge; and that the High Court has placed reliance on B the case of the other officer which involved more serious allegations and C even if the allegations so far as other officer and the present employee can be differentiated, yet it has to be noted that the High Court imposed more severe punishment compared to the other officer. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. The Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury "s case, the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. f1045-F-Gf D E 1.2. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority F or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to certain litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct G t~e Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 11045-H; 1046-AI Associated Provincial Picture Houses lin1ited v. Wednesbury Corpora/ion. f19481 I KB 223 and Council for Civil Services Union v. Minis/er of Civil Service, 119831 I AC 768, referred to. H A 1036 SUPRE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.