E.S. Nathan v. Canara Bank

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority...” In State Bank of India & Anr. v. K.S. Vishwanath (Civil Appeal No. 3490 of 2022) reported as 2022 INSC 616, the Supreme Court held: “7.2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has dealt with and considered the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Bank/management dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court was exercising the powers of the appellate authority. The High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has reappreciated the evidence on record which otherwise is not permissible as held by this Court in a catena of decisions. 7.[3] Recently in Nand Kishore Prasad (supra) after considering other decisions of this Court on judicial review and the power of the High Court in a departmental enquiry and interference with the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry, it is observed and held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is further observed and held that the High Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. It is further observed that if there is some evidence, that the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review/reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence...” In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported as (2011) 4 SCC 584, the Supreme Court held:

could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749: 1996 SCC (L&S) 80: (1996) 32 ATC 44], Union of India v.

1806], Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762: 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416: 2000 SCC (L&S) 144].)” (emphasis supplied)

6. The petitioner in the statement made on 30.06.2015 admitted that under his ID and password sixty-one unauthorized transactions of transfer of funds from GL Head to other accounts were made. The statement is in the handwriting of the petitioner and duly signed. The statement details the sales and purchases of land made by the petitioner; interest bearing loans borrowed from private sources; for getting his son admitted in medical college an amount of Rs.20 lacs bearing an interest rate of 3.[5] to 6 percent per month was borrowed and the payment of Rs.7.50 lacs made to a firm assuring admission of the son of the petitioner in a medical college at Bangalore which did not materialize. It was stated that the passwords of the senior officials came to the knowledge of the petitioner while genuine entries were being made. The petitioner admitted to have committed a mistake under a heavy financial burden and pressure. The assurance was given that mistake will not be repeated in future and to repay the amount due to bank.

7. The petitioner was supplied the charge-sheet, associated at enquiry stage, the response filed was considered by enquiry officer and after providing the copy of the enquiry report the disciplinary proceeding culminated in the impugned order.

8. The contention that the reliance on the statement of the petitioner, without supplying copy and the admission having not been recorded by the investigating officer is bad in law lacks merit. The petitioner neither denied having made the statement nor the signatures on it. The statement recorded on 30.06.2015 was not retracted. The complaint filed on 15.12.2015 in the police station alleging that the petitioner was forced to write the statement as dictated by the senior officials of the bank was not pursued. The allegations in the complaint were that the petitioner was carrying out the instructions of seniors for transferring the funds from GL Head but the fact remains that the transactions spanned for more than eighteen months but the petitioner never complained to the higher authorities. It is admitted fact that out of fourteen saving bank and loan accounts used for transfer of funds from GL Head, in ten accounts the petitioner was the introducer and the eleventh account belonged to his wife.

9. Further, the admission statement found mention in the investigation report as well as the inquiry report which were confronted to the petitioner. The admission statement was neither denied by the petitioner nor the copy of statement demanded. Even before this Court the veracity of the admission statement is not challenged. The argument raised that statement was recorded under pressure was rightly held by Appellate Authority to be afterthought contention. The petitioner got opportunities on various stages till the passing of the impugned order but the statement was never rescinded. It would be important to note that the statement of admission of the petitioner does not contain only an admission of transfer of funds from GL Head to other accounts but also the personal details which were only in knowledge of petitioner. At the cost of repetition, the statement is in handwriting of the petitioner and signed by him. The allegation that the statement was recorded under pressure remains a bald statement.

10. The law is well settled that there cannot be a straitjacket formula to apply the principles of natural justice and in cases where no prejudice is showed to be caused remanding the matter for violation of principles of natural justice would be a futile exercise. 10.[1] In Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati reported as (2006) 3 SCC 150, the Supreme Court held:

establish that prejudice has been caused to him for nonobservance of principles of natural justice.” 10.[2] In U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi and Ors. reported as (2005) 8 SCC 211, the Supreme Court held:

10.[3] In Union of India and Ors. v. Bishamber Das Dogra reported as (2009) 13 SCC 102, the Supreme Court held:

eventuality setting aside the order may not be in the interest of justice rather it may be tantamount to negation thereof.” 10.[4] In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Hari Singh reported as (2008) 11 SCC 85, the Supreme Court held:

11. The finding recorded that sixty-one transactions for transferring more than Rs.24,39,796/- were under the ID and password of the petitioner remains unchallenged. The argument that the transactions needed verification from the senior officers and petitioner alone was made scapegoat is ill-founded, in view of the consistent finding recorded by investigating officer, inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority that the IDs and passwords of the senior officials were stolen and misused by the petitioner.

12. The submission that no customer or the official of bank was produced during the inquiry to prove the case is of no avail. The allegations against the petitioner were duly proved and finding of investigation report, inquiry report and of disciplinary authority are concurrent on the issue. The relevance is of reliability of the evidence and witness examined and not the number of witness produced.

13. The decision of the Supreme Court in D.C. Aggarwal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In that case the inquiry officer exonerated the employee but the Central Vigilance Commission (for short „CVC‟) after disagreeing with inquiry report recorded its own finding. The inquiry report and the CVC recommendations were sent to the disciplinary authority and in those circumstances it was held that non-supply of CVC recommendations was in violation of principles of natural justice. Whereas in present case, the statement of admission of the petitioner was part of the record and it found mention in the investigation and the inquiry report which were confronted to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the copy of statement.

14. The impugned order suffers from no legal or factual error much perversity. The writ petition is dismissed.