Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Question Sufficiency Or Adequacy Of Evidence In Support Of Particular Conclusion In Disciplinary Proceedings: Kerala HC

The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a workman of the State Bank of Travancore who was removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry for fraud committed on the bank.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon the Apex Court judgement in Union of India v. H C Goel (1964) to state that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to consider sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion in an enquiry by the disciplinary authorities.

“I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of the Inquiring Authority which is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Review Authority invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As observed by the Apex Court, this Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion in a disciplinary proceeding invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The petitioner was the Deputy Manager at the Kozhikode Main Branch of the State Bank of Travancore. He was aggrieved by disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for committing certain serious lapses/irregularities/ malpractices in the loan accounts in his name. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service (Ext. P7). His appeal was also dismissed but the punishment was reduced to removal from service (Ext. P9). The review was also dismissed (Ext. P 11) and aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner preferred a writ petition.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank faced no loss of money. It was argued that the punishment of dismissal or removal from service was excessive and unjustified. It was further argued that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

The Counsel for respondents submitted that the degree of proof required in domestic inquiries was not that of a Court of Law and that strict rules of evidence did not apply to departmental inquiries. It was submitted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked for re-appreciation for evidence in domestic enquiries conducted by disciplinary authorities. It was submitted that writ jurisdiction could only be invoked seeking judicial review in departmental enquiries for correcting errors of law or procedural errors causing manifest injustice or for violation of principles of natural justice. Relying upon the Apex Court judgement in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar (2008), it was argued that removal or dismissal from service was an appropriate punishment for causing a misappropriation of funds and Courts must not interfere out of misplaced sympathy for a workman.

The Court referred to the Apex Court judgement in H C Goel (supra) to state that the High Court could enquire whether the available evidence could and must enquire whether there was any evidence to conclude. It said, “It is submitted that if the whole of the evidence led in the inquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent is the question to be decided. The Apex Court observed that this approach will avoid weighing the evidence and it will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence, the impugned conclusion follows or not.”

On analysing the evidence available in the present case, the Court stated that the disciplinary authority which is the fact-finding authority has considered the evidence against the petitioner to find his involvement in defrauding the bank. It stated that the disciplinary authorities have considered the charges, findings in the enquiry report and all evidence before issuing the impugned orders against the petitioner. It then added, “This Court cannot find fault with the respondents for accepting the report because this Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence.”

Regarding the penalty of dismissal/removal from service, the Court stated that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner since the bank suffered no loss and that he had 30 years of unblemished service in the bank. It thus set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner and directed the authorities to issue appropriate orders after reconsidering the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Girija K Gopal, B Sabitha (Desom), K N Vigy

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate P Ramakrishnan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 212

Case title: K M Habeeb Muhammed v The Managing Director

Case number: OP NO. 38705 OF 2001

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment