Case Note & Summary
The respondent, B.S.N. Prasad, was employed as a clerk with Syndicate Bank and later promoted as branch manager of the Mudigubba branch from 11 June 2007 to 3 November 2008. An investigation revealed that he made fictitious debits to crop insurance accounts, fraudulently withdrew amounts from SKCC accounts without borrowers' knowledge, exceeded sanctioned limits, and misappropriated funds totaling ₹1,10,000 from four customers and excess payments to two others. After a vigilance investigation, a chargesheet was issued on 17 October 2011. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted where the respondent cross-examined the investigating officer and was given inspection of documents. The inquiry officer held the charges proved on 15 March 2012. The disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent on 3 May 2012 for breach of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The appellate authority confirmed the dismissal on 30 March 2013. The respondent was later acquitted in criminal proceedings. He filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal. The learned Single Judge set aside the dismissal on 15 June 2022 on the ground of violation of natural justice and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Division Bench dismissed the bank's appeal, holding it a case of no evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the bank's appeal, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary findings. The Court noted that the respondent had admitted the transactions in written communications and had returned the misappropriated amounts, which constituted sufficient evidence. The Court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to perversity or no evidence, and the adequacy of evidence cannot be questioned. The acquittal in criminal proceedings was irrelevant. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the dismissal, but directed the bank to pay the respondent 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation, considering the respondent's clean record and the fact that the amounts were recovered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Scope - Writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence or go into adequacy of evidence; interference is permissible only if findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by holding it a case of no evidence when there was documentary evidence and admissions by the respondent (Paras 15-18). B) Service Law - Evidence - Admission - Admission of facts by delinquent employee in written communications and return of misappropriated amounts constitute sufficient evidence to prove charges in disciplinary inquiry - Held that the respondent's own letters admitting the transactions and the fact that he returned the money to customers were adequate proof of misconduct (Paras 13-16). C) Service Law - Criminal Acquittal - Relevance - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not affect disciplinary proceedings as standards of proof are different - Held that the respondent's exoneration in criminal case was irrelevant to the disciplinary inquiry (Para 18). D) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Where the delinquent employee was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and inspect documents, principles of natural justice are satisfied - Held that there was no violation of natural justice in the present case (Paras 2, 7, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the disciplinary authority's order of dismissal on the ground of no evidence and violation of natural justice, and whether the writ court could re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of Division Bench and order of Single Judge set aside. Order of dismissal restored. However, considering the respondent's clean record and recovery of amounts, the bank is directed to pay 50% of back wages from date of dismissal till date of superannuation within three months.
Law Points
- Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings limited to perversity or no evidence
- adequacy of evidence not reviewable
- acquittal in criminal case irrelevant to disciplinary inquiry
- admission of facts and documentary evidence sufficient to prove charges
- principles of natural justice not violated if opportunity of hearing given
