Disciplinary Authority Can Differ With Findings Recorded By Enquiring Authority Against A Delinquent Employee: Telangana High Court
Wednesbury rule of arbitrariness applies if punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to misconduct.
The Telangana High Court recently dismissed a Writ petition filed by a delinquent employee arguing that once the Enquiry Officer had found no materia against him, the Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the finding of the Enquiry authority. Justice G. Sri Devi observed,"The final decision rests with the disciplinary/punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions,...
The Telangana High Court recently dismissed a Writ petition filed by a delinquent employee arguing that once the Enquiry Officer had found no materia against him, the Disciplinary Authority cannot differ with the finding of the Enquiry authority.
Justice G. Sri Devi observed,
"The final decision rests with the disciplinary/punishing authority which can come to its own conclusions, bearing in mind the views expressed by Enquiry Officer. It is also well settled that the disciplinary authority in order to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it need not give reasons to contest the correctness of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. What is necessary is that the disciplinary authority should record the findings having support of materials and evidence on record."
Brief Facts of the case
The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents for discharging the petitioner from services of Bank with all benefits and treating the period of suspension as not spent on duty as illegal.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in State Bank of Hyderabad in 1989 and thereafter he was posted as Single Window Operator at respondent bank. There was a complaint by a customer having Savings Bank Account that there was a withdrawal of cash Rs. 20,000/- from his account which he had not withdrawn. On the same day, the said complaint was withdrawn. However, without taking into consideration the withdrawal of complaint, given by said account holder, the 2nd respondent vide his letter, placed petitioner herein under suspension pending further investigation and disciplinary action.
The petitioner denied the allegations but 2nd respondent issued charge sheet-cum-show cause notice, stating that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Thereafter, the 4th respondent- Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report that the charges were not established against the petitioner. But the 2nd respondent differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and arrived at his own findings. The account holder clearly stated that the payment was genuine in which withdrawal of complaint letter.
Thereafter, even after all the explanations, the 2nd respondent awarded the punishment of discharge of Petitioner from service in terms of Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen. The 3rd respondent also confirmed the orders of 2nd respondent in appeal. The respondent contended that the past record of petitioner indicated that he was warned for cash shortage of Rs. 1.04 lakhs from his possession and also for not obtaining prior permission from competent authority for standing as guarantor for a loan sanctioned to a person by the Corporation Bank.
The petitioner argued that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter, he could not vary the findings of the Enquiry Officer if the Enquiry Officer finds the charges framed against delinquent employee are not established.
Ruling of the court
The Court noticed that there is a settled law that the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings recorded by Enquiring authority. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and record a finding contrary to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. With regard to the punishment, the High Court will interfere only if facts disclosed before the Court would warrant application of Wednesbury Rule of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and when the Court finds that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct established against the delinquent employee.
The court observed that the subsequent event of customer withdrawing the complaint had no significance as record did not support that the payment was an authorized one at the relevant time. The withdrawal letter of the Account holder was only an afterthought to cover up the lapses on part of petitioner.
Hence, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Case Title: K. Suresh Kaushik v. State Bank of Hyderabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 73