Article 226 | Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Already Considered By Departmental Authorities: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that it cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution, in cases of departmental enquiries, re-appreciate evidence which has already been reasonably considered by the departmental authorities.

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also noted that it was not up to the High Court to adjudge upon the proportionality of the punishment in such cases. It observed,

"It is not at all open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Equally, it is not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court."

The facts of the case are that the petitioner, working as an employee of the Canara Bank was charged on grounds of irregularities in some group accounts. The charges against the petitioner included recommending enhancement without assessing the proposal or verifying the party's merit for enhancement, permitting overdrawings of huge value to party even though DP in the account was not available, releasing enhanced limit to party without complying with sanction terms and conditions, misrepresenting facts to circle office, not classifying an account NPA despite it being one, among other things.

After inquiry, the Petitioner was removed from the services. He preferred an appeal against the same but the Appellate Authority rejected the same on the ground that it found no reason to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. 

In the instant proceedings before the High Court, it was noted that in the departmental proceedings, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner regarding irregularities in the group accounts were proved. It also noted that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were given after giving appropriate opportunities to the Petitioner to defend his case.

The petitioner had submitted that CBI had initiated proceedings in the matter and acquitted him from all the charges levelled against him. Here, the court noted that the criminal court acquitted the Petitioner on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, in the departmental proceedings, the misconduct of the Petitioner had been established and proved. The court stated that-

"As per the Principles of Law, an acquittal in criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings, since both the cases are different in nature and proceedings operate in different fields with different objectives." 

The court also noted that when the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had both gauged the evidence, it was settled law that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. 

The court noted that the Disciplinary Authority, after dealing with the inquiry report, discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge by way of giving detailed reasoning and findings, had found that the Inquiry Officer reached on the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty for the charges levelled against him, after considering all the aspect pertaining to the case and the entire evidence on record. The Appellate Authority had also, while dealing with the appeal, passed a well-reasoned order upholding the finding of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.

Therefore, the court held that it was not open to it to re-appreciate the evidence.

"Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable...No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment."

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

CASE TITLE: SH D.C. NARNOLIA v. CANARA BANK AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 736

Click Here To Read Order