http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  298 of 2005

PETITIONER: Bank of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: T. Jogram

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2007

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With C.A.No.640 of 2005)

H.K.SEMA,J.

(1)             This appeal preferred by Bank of India is directed  against the judgment and order dated  3.9.2004 passed by the  Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra  Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.205 of 2002, upsetting the order  passed by the learned Single Judge. (2)             We have heard Ms.Neha Sharma, learned counsel  for the appellants as well as Mr. A.T. Rao, learned counsel for  the respondent.  (3)             Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-                 The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the  appellant-bank sometime in the year 1982.  He was,  thereafter, promoted as Junior Management Officer Scale-I in  1993 and was posted to Tamilnadu.  After two years he was  transferred to Hyderabad.  While he was working as an officer  at Secunderabad Branch during the period from 6.1.1996 to  30.3.1998, he was on deputation to Visakhapatnam from  22.02.1997 to 25.02.1997 for mobilization of shares.  He  submitted bills claiming travel expenses, lodging and boarding  charges and halting allowance for the aforesaid period.  It was  found that the amount claimed by the respondent was  inflated.  A charge memo was issued to him on 26.03.1999.   The charges levelled against him are:-                 "Article I   

"You were on deputation to Visakhapatnam  Branch from 22.2.1997 to 25.2.1997 for which  you submitted the TA bill on 27th February,  1997 claiming the fabricated travelling  expenses, which are far in excess of the  normal conveyance.  You are claimed and  submitted a lodging bill of Lodge Brindavan for  Rs.500/- for two days whereas the room rent  paid by you in the said lodge Brindavan for 2  days was Rs.104/-.  Thus you submitted a  false bill.  You had also arranged to  incorporate boarding charges of Rs.300/- in  the bill issued by Lodge Brindavan although  no boarding facilities are available in the said  lodge.  You have also claimed halting  allowance of Rs.350/- which is in excess of the  entitlement.                 Your aforesaid acts of claiming false

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

and fabricated travelling expenses, claiming  false lodging charges and also claiming excess  halting allowance, if proved, shall amount to  misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of Bank  of India Officer Employees (Conduct)  Regulations, 1976 in as much as you alleged  to have committed breach of Regulation 3(1) of  the said Regulations, which reads as under:

Regulation 3 (1)

               Every officer employee shall, at all  times take all possible steps to ensure and  protect the interest of the Bank and discharge  his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,  devotion and diligence and do nothing which is  unbecoming of a Bank Officer.

                                                   CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER                                              TRIVANDRUM REGION                                             AND                                             DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY"                         (4)             The respondent submitted his explanation to the  charge, denying the charges. The Disciplinary Authority  appointed Chief Regional Manager, MICR Centre Hyderabad,  as Enquiry Officer.  The enquiry was conducted expeditiously.   The Enquiry Officer after examining the witnesses and  exhibited documents from both sides submitted his findings  on 13.01.2000 holding the respondent guilty of the charges  framed against him.  A copy of the enquiry report was also  furnished to the respondent and after examining the written  reply by the respondent; the Disciplinary Authority accepted  the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the  punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f.  14.7.2001.   Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Writ Petition  No.14786 of 2001 questioning the impugned order of  compulsory retirement.  The said Writ Petition was disposed of  by the High Court on 20.7.2001 directing the respondent to  exhaust his alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal  under Regulation 17 of Bank of India Employees (Discipline  and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.  By an order dated 30.8.2001,  the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the respondent  and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.     (5)             Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred another  Writ Petition No.18372 of 2001 questioning the penalty of  compulsory retirement.  The learned Single Judge after  hearing counsel on both sides and perusing the record did not  find any valid ground to interfere with the penalty of  compulsory retirement and dismissed the Writ Petition by an  order dated 27.9.2001. (6)             We may, at this stage quote the reasoning of the  learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition.  The  learned Single Judge held:

"As long as the order passed is not in violation  of rules/regulations/statutory provisions, the  enquiry cannot be set aside in a casual  manner.  The Judicial review under Article 226  of the Constitution of India is open only on  grounds of malafide, arbitrariness and  perversity.  The Writ Petitioner except stating  that he is the founder of SCs, STs and OBCs  Association protecting the interest of  downtrodden and that the Respondent Bank

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

management is biased against him, has failed  to place any relevant material to substantiate  his case.  The administrative and disciplinary  action of the respondent bank cannot be the  subject matter of review, once they followed  the due process of law.  In the present case,  order of compulsory retirement has been  passed based on the material available on  record and on the charges levelled and proved  against the petitioner and the order impugned  has been passed in the public interest, retiring  him compulsorily.  The order impugned is  subjective satisfaction of the respondent-Bank  based on the report made available on record.   The petitioner is an officer of the respondent- Bank and it goes without saying that the bank  business, absolute devotion, diligence,  integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by  very bank employee and in particular the bank  officer.  If this is not observed, the confidence  of the public/depositors would be impaired."    

(7)             We entirely agree with the reasons recorded by the  learned Single Judge.  The reasoning of the learned Single  Judge is in consonance with the well-settled principles of law  enunciated by this Court in a catena of decisions.  (8)             We dismay to notice that the Division Bench of the  High Court upset the well reasoning recorded by the learned  Single Judge by re-appreciating the evidence.  (9)             The Division Bench of the High Court also noticed  that the High Court under Article 226 would not interfere with  the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the  Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of  course.    The High Court also recorded that the Court cannot  sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the  Appellate Authority. (10)            Having said that, the High Court summersaulted  and re-appreciated the entire evidence and then upset the well  reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge.  (11)            Ms.Neha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant-bank would contend that there is no allegation of  procedural irregularities or illegality or violation of statutory  rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, which would require the  Division Bench of the High Court to upset the well reasoning  recorded by the learned Single Judge by way of judicial review.   She would further contend that the High Court was wrong in  re-appreciating the entire evidence and that the High Court  cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Enquiry  Officer and assume the role of the Appellate Authority.  There  is sufficient force in this contention.  In support of her  contention she referred to various decisions of this Court;  Union Bank of India   vs.   Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310,  Apparel Export Promotion Council   Vs.   A.K. Chopra,  (1999) 1 SCC 759, Union of India   vs.  K.G. Soni, (2006) 6  SCC 794, Sterling Computers Ltd.    Vs.  M/s  M & N  Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445, State Bank of Patiala &  Ors.   vs.  S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, Delhi  Development Authority   Vs.  UEE Electricals Engg.(P) Ltd.,  (2004) 11 SCC 213, Chairman and Managing Director,  United Commercial Bank  Vs.  P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC  364. (12)            Avoiding multiplicity we may note a few decisions of  this Court. (13)            In B.C. Chaturvedi   Vs.  Union of India, (1995) 6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

SCC 749, a three Judge Bench of this Court held in paragraph  12 as under:-

"Judicial review is not an appeal from a  decision but a review of the manner in which  the decision is made. Power of judicial review  is meant to ensure that the individual receives  fair treatment and not to ensure that the  conclusion which the authority reaches is  necessarily correct in the eye of the Court.  When an inquiry is conducted on charges of  misconduct by a public servant, the  Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine  whether the inquiry was held by a competent  officer or whether rules of natural justice are  complied with. Whether the findings or  conclusions are based on some evidence, the  authority entrusted with the power to hold  inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority  to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But  that finding must be based on some evidence.  Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor  of proof fact or evidence as defined therein,  apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the  authority accepts that evidence and conclusion  receives support therefrom, the disciplinary  authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent  officer is guilty of the charge. The  Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review  does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own  independent findings on the evidence. The  Court/Tribunal may interfere where the  authority held that the proceedings against the  delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent  with the rules of natural justice or in violation  of statutory rules prescribing the mode of  inquiry or where the conclusion or finding  reached by the disciplinary authority is based  on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be  such as no reasonable person would have ever  reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere  with the conclusion or the finding, and mould  the relief so as to make it appropriate to the  facts of each case."               

(14)            In the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC,   Vs.   Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 SCC 605, this Court observed at p.614 scc  as under:-

"If the charged employee holds a position of  trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt  requirements of functioning, it would not be  proper to deal with the matter leniently.  Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt  with iron hands. 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 trust- worthiness is a must and unexceptionable.  Judged in that background, conclusions of  the Division Bench of the High Court do not  appear to be proper. We set aside the same  and restore order of learned Single Judge  upholding the order of dismissal."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

(15)    By now it is well-settled principle of law that judicial  review is not against the decision.  It is against the decision  making process.  In the instant case, there are no allegations  of procedural irregularities/illegality and also there is no  allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.  Counsel  for the respondent tried to sustain the allegation of malafide.   He tried to assert that the respondent filed a case against the  Chief Manager of Secunderabad Branch in 1996 and the  enquiry initiated against the respondent is the fall out of  malafide.  We are unable to accept the bald allegations.   The  allegation of malafide was not substantiated.  It is well settled  law that the allegation of malafide cannot be based on  surmises and conjectures.  It should be based on factual  matrix.  Counsel also tried to assert the violation of principles  of natural justice on the ground that the documents required  by the respondent were not supplied to him.  From the  averment it is seen that the documents, which were sought to  be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted  by the respondent himself before the authority.  In these  circumstances, no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the  respondent. (16)            As already noticed the charge of the respondent was  violation of Regulation 3(1) of Bank of India Officer Employees  (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.  The Regulation require that  every officer employee shall at all times take all possible steps  to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge  his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and  diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank  Officer. (17)            In the view that we have taken the impugned order  of the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in  law.  It is accordingly set-aside.  The Order of the learned  Single Judge is restored.  The Writ Petition filed by the  respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No  costs. (18)            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2005                 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.298 of  2005, Civil Appeal No.640 of 2005 is dismissed.