Absolute Devotion, Integrity And Honesty Is A Sine Qua Non For Every Bank Employee: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of A Bank Clerk

In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee, observed the Supreme Court while upholding dismissal of a bank employee.

In July 1999, Ajai Kumar Srivastava, who worked as a Cashier/Clerk, was dismissed after holding disciplinary enquiry, found him guilty of charges of misappropriation of funds. The departmental appeal filed by him was also dismissed. Allowing a writ petition filed by him, the Allahabad High Court set aside the order for the following two reasons: One, before the finding of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference to Charge no. 1, fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent delinquent and that has caused prejudice to him. Two, the disciplinary authority/appellate authority has not examined the record of disciplinary enquiry independently and passed a non­speaking order without due application of mind.

In appeal, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi observed that the Charge no. 1 in reference to which the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has been overturned by the disciplinary authority is severable from the other charges(Charge nos. 2-­7) levelled against the employee which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the finding of fact was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority after meeting out objections raised by the respondent delinquent in his written brief furnished at different stages. The court observed:

"If the 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 on the finding of guilt being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2­7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency which, in our view, was an apparent error being committed by the High Court while interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent employee." 

In the judgment, the court has made the following observations regarding power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings:

1. The 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. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
2. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
3. Where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
4. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry 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.
5. 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. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

While setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench further observed:

Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that 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. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.

CASE: DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [SLP(C) No(s). 32067­32068 of 2018]

CORAM: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 2

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment