DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS versus AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 05-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
AND OTHERS
v.
AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
(Civil Appeal No(s). 17-18 of 2021)
JANUARY 05, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds –
Dismissal from service –  Enquiry officer noticed in his enquiry
report that the respondent delinquent neither produced any
document nor witness in self-defence and even never requested to
allow him to defend him by a representative of his choice – Enquiry
officer examined all the charges and found charges 2 to 7 proved
while charge no.1 was held to be not proved – Disciplinary authority
revisited the record of enquiry and while upholding the finding of
fact in reference to charge no.2-7 disagreed on finding on charge
no.1 and held charge no.1 to be proved – Appellate authority upheld
the finding of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the
punishment of dismissal – High Court set aside punishment of
dismissal holding that disagreement of disciplinary authority on
charge no.1 caused great prejudice to the employee and, that apart,
the disciplinary/appellate authority passed a non-speaking order
which was in violation of the principles of natural justice – On
appeal, held:  Disciplinary authority on receiving the report of
enquiry, if was not in agreement with the finding of enquiry officer,
was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and
call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before
recording his finding of guilt – Thus, the procedure as prescribed
by law was not followed and that caused prejudice to the respondent
and it was in violation of the principles of natural justice – So far
as the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in
reference to charge No. 1 was concerned, that could not be held to
be justified in holding him guilty – But charge no.1 is severable
from the other charges (charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the
respondent which were found proved by the enquiry officer – If the
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone,
it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of
dismissal illegal but finding of guilt being recorded by enquiry officer
in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the
disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered with
and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency.
Judicial Review: Scope of – Held: Power of judicial review
of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself – It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
Constitution of India: Arts.226, 136 – Power of judicial review
in the matters of disciplinary inquiries – Constitutional Court while
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Art.226 or Art.136
of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in a case
of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support
a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
Service Law: Departmental enquiry – It is true that strict rules
of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings
– However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against
the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon
which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity
may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against
the delinquent employee.
Bank/Banking: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds –
Dismissal from service –  In banking business absolute devotion,
integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee – It
requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and
he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is
not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be
impaired – For this additional reason, High Court erred in setting
aside order of dismissal of respondent against whom findings of
the guilt of grave delinquency were established.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
Allowing the appeals,

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