It would be justified to examine the matter by writ court if the recorded findings were unsupported by evidence

Rabia Basaria | Panjab University, Chandigarh | 3rd February 2020

Allahabad bank & Ors. vs Krishna Narayan Tewari  Civil appeal no. 7600 of 2014

FACTS:-

• The respondent was employed with the appellant- bank
• On 10^th December, 2004 by an order the respondent was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry.
• The enquiry officer submitted the report holding respondent guilty. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and passed an order of removal of respondent from the service.
• Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, the appellant appeal to the Appellant Authority but the same was dismissed on 5 January, 2006.
• Then the respondent challenged the said two orders before the High Court in writ petition.

Appeal to High Court:-

The High Court held that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant Authority were unsustainable in law. The High Court found that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority were unsupported by evidence. High Court also observed that appellant had not applied its own mind. High Court didn’t find the respondent guilty. High Court directed the appellant- bank to provide all service /retrial benefits to the petitioner within ninety days of the order.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:-

It is contended that High Court had exceeded is jurisdiction in re-apreciating the evidence. It is also submitted that if there was any infirmity in the orders then the appropriate course for High Court was to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority or Appellant Authority for fresh enquiry or order.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:-

It is contended that firstly, the enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer was unfair because reasonable opportunity was not provide to the respondent to lead evidence in his defence.

Secondly, the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer were unsupported by evidence.

Thirdly, the order was unsustainable because neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellant Authority applied their mind and 

lastly, the respondent has since superannuated and suffered a heart attack and a stroke. So any remand of the proceedings to Appellant Authority or Disciplinary Authority for re-examination would not only be harsh but would tantamount to denial of justice to him.

HELD:-

The Court held that it would be justified to examine the matter by writ court if the recorded findings were unsupported by evidence and Court observed that High Court was in right view to interfere with orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority as there’s non-application of the mind by Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority . The court also has the opinion that any remand either to the Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority would be harsh to the respondent. Therefore the court quashed the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority and respondent shall be entitled to 50% of the salary for the period between date of his removal from the service till the date of superannuation. Retrial benefit shall also be released in his favor. The order passed by High Court stands modified.