Madhya Pradesh High Court
Duryodhan Ganpat Ramteke vs Central Bank Of India on 13 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635
1 WP-5273-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5273 of 2006
DURYODHAN GANPAT RAMTEKE
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A. K. Pandey - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.6.2005 (Annexure -P/11), order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure-P/13), order dated 19.9.2005 (Annexure-P/14) and order dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure-P/15) whereby the allegations of embezzlement of Rs.2 Lakhs was levelled against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service on the ground that the charges levelled against him were found proved and the appeal filed against the order of dismissal from service has been affirmed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Clerk on 17.3.1986 and was posted at Central Bank of India, Branch Parasia, Chhindwara and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Casher and was posted at Central Bank of India, Linga Branch, at Chhindwara. While he was working on the post of casher, he was held responsible for embezzlement of Rs.2 lakhs as while closing the cash, Branch Manager found shortage of Rs.2 Lakhs which was in the custody of the petitioner and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 2 WP-5273-2006 the Branch Manager also wrote a letter to the concerned Police Station for lodging the first information report against the petitioner, upon which, an FIR for offence under Section 409 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was chargesheeted along with other employee who is private respondent no. 5 in the matter. However, no FIR was registered against the private respondent no. 5. On 28.9.2004 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner while handling the cash department on 29.4.2004 by keeping his set of cash keys in an pen drawer, caused a loss of Rs.2 Lakhs to the Bank and thus, he is charged with gross misconduct under Para 5 (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen dated 10.4.2002 and was asked to present himself in the departmental proceedings. Thereafter, on 2.12.2004 the petitioner submitted an application to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Regionary Manager, Central Bank of India Chhindwara permitting him to defend his case by Shri D. D. Ukey who was a Joint General Secretary of Central Bank Shoshit Karmachari Sangh, New Delhi. However, the said application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted an application on 1.1.2005 for appointment of Shri D. D. Ukey as his defense representative but this time again his application was rejected on 5.1.2005. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.1.2005 the petitioner preferred a letter to the Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India at Raipur and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.2.2005 passed an order in favour of the petitioner. Again the petitioner on 15.5.2005 submitted another application permitting him to defend his case by Mr. D.D. Ukey, Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 3 WP-5273-2006 however, the said application fell into deaf ear. However, in the meanwhile, inquiry proceeding was completed and inquiry report was prepared which was forwarded to the Disciplinary authority pointing out the fact that the charge levelled against the petitioner was found to be proved. An order based upon the inquiry report was issued to dismiss the petitioner from service dated 5.9.2005. On the same day i.e. on 19.9.2005 an Administrative order was passed by the Regional Manager terminating the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager who affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding that the petitioner has been given an opportunity of personal hearing to submit any new evidence or witness but he in his personal hearing did not bring out either any new or other relevant facts relating to his proven misconducts.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority both are biased, malicious and are issued malevolently under colourable exercise of powers which are violating the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the private respondent who was also found guilty for the same offence has been given the punishment of stopping of two increments only. The petitioner has not been given a fair opportunity to engage the defense representative. It is also argued that the petitioner was neither supplied the copy of the FIR nor the charge sheet in the entire case. Hence, prayer is made to allow the petition by quashing the orders under challenge.
4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 4 WP-5273-2006 opposed the contentions and denied the petition's averments. It is submitted that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the departmental inquiry. Challenge is made on the ground that no fair opportunity was granted to the petitioner. However, the fact remains that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to participate in the departmental inquiry. It is argued that the petitioner was facing a criminal case registered against him and was facing a departmental inquiry simultaneously as there is no bar holding a parallel proceedings. It is further contended that the main ground which is raised by the petitioner is that he was not allowed to take defense representative. The said ground raised by the petitioner is specifically denied. It is contended that the Bank has followed the procedure as contemplated therein and concluded the departmental inquiry. The statements of the witnesses were recorded during the enquiry. The petitioner was insisting for taking Shri D. D. Ukey as defense representative since he was an officer employee of the Bank, the petitioner was advised to engage a member of the Award Staff as a defense representative to defend himself in accordance with the Bipartite settlement. He was given more than sufficient time to engage his defense representative who is a member of the Award Staff. Although he was always seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other for the same and has himself chosen not to appoint a defense assistant from award staff.
5. Another ground which is taken by the petitioner that the Brach Manager was also responsible for the same but no FIR was registered against him. It is contended that role of the Branch Manager is entirely different than the cashier. The post of cashier which the petitioner was holding was Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 5 WP-5273-2006 responsible for handling cash. The petitioner who is custodian of the key, by which, cash drawer and almirah were to open and without help of the petitioner's keys, the said cash drawer and almirah could not be opened. The petitioner deliberately left his key in an open drawer and thereafter, the cash was missing, therefore, the petitioner is held responsible for embezzlement of Rs.2 Lakhs. The petitioner was also found guilty in the criminal case registered against him, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
6. It is also argued that it is a matter of imposition of punishment to a delinquent employee after conclusion of departmental enquiry. The petitioner was granted ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings which he has availed. Interference in cases of departmental enquiry is limited to the extent of procedural flaw. There cannot be any reappreciation of evidence at this stage. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment which was subsequently challenged in the appeal and the same was affirmed, therefore, there are concurrent findings recorded by three authorities with respect to guilt of the petitioner. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and reappreciate the entire evidence. It is only the procedural error which can be looked into by this Court while dealing with the cases of imposition of punishment after a detailed departmental enquiry in the matter. Placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey, (2021) 14 SCC 735, wherein while dismissing the claim of the delinquent employee, it has been observed that "a police Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 6 WP-5273-2006 officer in the Railway Protection Force is required to maintain high standard of integrity in the discharge of his official functions and it shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the force to protect and safeguard railway property and passengers. The primary object of constituting the Railway Protection Force is to secure better protection and security of the railway property", as also of this Court in Mahendra Singh Chauhan vs Northern Central Railway : WP No. 9653 of 2021 decided on 20.02.2025. The petitioner is working on the post of a Cashier having much higher responsibility. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Counsel for the petitioner by way of rejoinder has denied the contentions of the return filed by the respondents. It is pointed out that the learned JMFC had convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced accordingly in criminal case no. 915/2004 vide judgment dated 17.2.2010, against which, the petitioner filed criminal appeal no. 71/10 and the learned Appellate Court by setting the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.2.2010 remanded the matter for rehearing to the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 21.4.2011 and thereafter, learned trial Court again reheard the matter and acquitted the petitioner from the offence under Section 409 of IPC vide its judgment dated 10.3.2016. It is argued that on the same set of evidence, criminal case was registered against the petitioner eventually on the same charge departmental inquiry was conducted, then the petitioner cannot be held guilty in the departmental inquiry once he has been exonerated in the criminal case. Under these circumstances, he has prayed for interference in the impugned order Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 7 WP-5273-2006 and therefore, prayed for quashment of the impugned orders passed against him.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Record indicates that the petitioner was cashier at the relevant time. The petitioner was the custodian of the keys to operate the cash in the bank. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 28.9.2004 levelling the following charges :-
"Mr. D.G, Ramteke Head Cashier E (U/S), B/O Linga was is-sued with Bank's Memo RO PRS/2004-05:72 Dt. 03-05-2004. The reply of Shri D.G. Ramteke Dt. 14-06- 2004 in response to above memo has not been found satisfactory by the management of the bank which has been informed to Mr. Ramteke vide Memo RO:PRS:DAD:04- 05:181 Dt. 24-06-2004 wherein it has been mentioned that the management may proceed further and initiate the Departmental action at the appropriate time. It has therefore been decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against Mr. Ramteke Head Cashier E (U/S) for his act of gross misconduct while he was working as Head Cashier E at Linga Branch on 29-4-2004.Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 8 WP-5273-2006 On 29-04-2004 the Branch Cash was opened with previous day's closing balance of Rs. 52,847.36 .The case receipts on 29-04- 04 was Rs.5,83,396/- including inward Case remittance of Rs. 4,00,000/- from Branch Office, Chhindwara. The cash payments on 29-4-2004 were Rs. 2,03,540/-. Thus the cash was to be closed with cash on hand Balance of Rs. 4,32,703.36 At about 3.30 pm it was informed by Mr. Ramteke to the Branch Manager that there was a cash shortage of Rs. 2,00,000/- Finally cash was closed with Rs.2,32,703.36 by debiting CD Nominal A/c with Rs. 2,.00,000/-.
Due to negligence of Mr. Ramteke while handling the Cash Department on 29- 04-2004, by keeping his set of cash keys in an open drawer, caused a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Bank. Thus Mr. Ramteke is charged with gross misconduct under para 5
(j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen Dated 10-04-2002."
10. Criminal case was also registered against the petitioner for offence Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 9 WP-5273-2006 under Section 409 of IPC. He was initially convicted in the criminal case no. 915/2004 vide judgment dated 17.2.2010 for offence under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Against which, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal no.71/10 and the learned lower appellate court vide judgment dated 21.4.2011 by setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.2.2010 remanded the matter to the trial court for rehearing of the case and ultimately, learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.3.2016 acquitted the petitioner of all the charges holding the charges not found to be proved.
11. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are the same, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty in the departmental enquiry once he has already been exonerated and acquitted in the criminal case.
12. The fact remains that the proceeding in a criminal case is based upon the strict proof of evidence and the departmental enquiry is based upon the preponderance of probabilities. No strict proof of evidence is required in the case of departmental enquiry. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner was cashier and custodian of the keys, therefore, he was responsible for handling the entire cash in the bank. If there is any missing entry or withdrawal of the cash amount, then he is bound to inform the officer of the bank. On the relevant date, cash amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was found missing at the time of closing of the cash, therefore, the petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 10 WP-5273-2006 held responsible and a charge sheet was issued to him. During the inquiry, the petitioner filed an application for providing defense representative, one Shri D. D. Ukey, the said request was denied. On the contrary, the petitioner was advised to take any other defense representative of Award Staff, for which, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner. The petitioner himself has chosen not to take defense representative from the Award Staff. He was adamant to appoint Shri D. D. Ukey as his defense representative in the matter. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not granted permission to take defense representative. He has not chosen to take defense assistance from Award Staff despite permission granted to him. The reason for not giving Shri D. D. Ukey as defense representative is shown that Shri Ukey was an employee of the Bank itself, therefore, just for holding a fair inquiry in the matter, it was advised to take defense representative from Award Staff but the petitioner himself has chosen not to take defense representative from Award Staff, therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities have specifically denied for granting defense assistance to the petitioner. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner that he was not permitted to take defense representative in the matter cannot be accepted.
13. All other grounds raised by the petitioner do not make out a case for interference in the matter as in the case of departmental enquiry the scope of interference is limited. The inquiry officer has found charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority and the learned Appellate authority had dismissed the appeal by Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 11 WP-5273-2006 affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. The petitioner was working as Cashier in the respondent bank is having highest responsibility to deal with the cash as for having any shortcomings in the account is only attributable to the petitioner as he is responsible to explain the shortage in the cash at the time of closing. The petitioner cannot take a defense that since the Branch Manager is not being prosecuted for a criminal case, the petitioner should also be extended the similar benefits. The fact remains that role of the Branch Manager is entirely different from the cashier. Even otherwise, the Branch Manager has taken immediate steps to get the complaint lodged against the petitioner who is dealing with the cash in hand. Under these circumstances, interference in the present case as the scope of judicial review is limited and only limited interference can be made in the case of punishment arising out of the departmental inquiry. 14. The law with respect to interference in the cases of departmental enquiry is limited to the extent as has been spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra) wherein certain guidelines have been framed and has held as under-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 12 WP-5273-2006 proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 13 WP-5273-2006 the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(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. Even otherwise, this Court has limited jurisdiction to dwell on factual findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, so also on the quantum of penalty as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. Further, in the case of Union of India vs Dilip Paul, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423, it is held as under :
"44. It is well settled that when it comes to disciplinary proceedings, it is the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority who could be said to be the fact- finding authority and the courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review should not sit in appeal and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 14 WP-5273-2006 reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The scope of judicial review of the courts is limited only to the propriety of the decision-making process and the fairness of the inquiry procedure as held by this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749. The relevant observations are reproduced below:
"12. 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 of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 15 WP-5273-2006 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 reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held 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."
16. Another argument raised before this Court is whether the order passed by the Appellate authority is without assigning any reason and is a non- speaking order and also the fact that the scope of interference in the cases of punishment after the detailed departmental enquiry.
17. As far as passing of orders by the Inquiring Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has prepared the enquiry report after considering the entire material placed in the enquiry. The enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 16 WP-5273-2006 who has issued notice to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner has submitted the reply to the enquiry report. The Appellate authority considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority reflects that the appellate authority has considered the entire record pertaining to the departmental enquiry. The principles of natural justice were duly followed in the departmental enquiry. This goes to show that the records were duly considered by the Appellate authority.
18. This Court cannot sit as a reviewing authority and cannot re-appreciate the evidence, therefore, the evidence cannot be looked into by this Court. As far as the argument advanced before this Court regarding non-speaking order by the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority is concerned, both the orders clearly reflect proper application of mind by the authorities. All the grounds raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the Appellate authority. The Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority are not required to assign any reasons while deciding an appeal. It is suffice to observe that the entire material pertaining to departmental enquiry was considered by the Appellate authority and he is satisfied with the observations made in the enquiry report as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee : 2012 SCC Online SC 1315 has held as under-
" 3 2 - It is trite law that in disciplinary Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 17 WP-5273-2006 proceedings, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
33. All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the Disciplinary Authority adn the Appellate Authority while dealing with the case of the respondent.
34. In our considered view, the Division Bench fell into grave error in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 18 WP-5273-2006 vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is a settled principle of law that the burden laid upon the prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618 wherein this Court held as follows: -
"15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 19 WP-5273-2006 may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court...."
35. We find that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition29 filed by the respondent against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, considered the entire factual matrix in detail and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondent vide a detailed and well-reasoned judgment dated 29th June, 2011.
3 6 . The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court jurisdiction is crystallised by this Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 20 WP-5273-2006 wherein it was held as under:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."
(emphasis supplied)
37. The position is, thus, settled that in an Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 21 WP-5273-2006 intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. However, the Division Bench, in the present case, failed to record any such finding and rather, proceeded to delve into extensive re- appreciation of evidence to overturn the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
38. On going through the material on record, we are of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was fully justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent. The Appellate Authority too has duly applied its mind to the facts available on record while affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent. These two orders have rightly been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition31 filed by the respondent. The judgment dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 22 WP-5273-2006 29th June, 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and unassailable.
39. In the wake of the above discussion, we hold that the Division Bench, while exercising the intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction clearly erred in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as affirmed by the learned Single Judge."
20. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank : (2021) 3 SCC 806 , has opined as under
:-
"11. . . . Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 23 WP-5273-2006 authority"
21. It will also be relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava : (2021)2 SCC612; has held as under -
"42- In the case on hand, the
disciplinary/appellate authority was not
supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the order dated 24th July, 1999, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry, including self-contained enquiry report dated 22nd May, 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29th June, 1999 which was made available to the respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24th July, 1999. That apart, the appeal preferred by the respondent delinquent was examined by the appellate authority as it reveals under para 3(i) to (viii) in upholding the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer in his report dismissing Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 24 WP-5273-2006 the respondent employee from service, rejected by order dated 15th November, 1999. After detailed discussion, we are unable to accept the finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority which deserves to be set aside."
22. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Heem Singh reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569 has held as under:-
"38. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and of the star witness resiling from his statements. Our precedents indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 25 WP-5273-2006 Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, this Court held : (SCC p. 40, para 37) "37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well- settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge."
(emphasis supplied)
39. In State v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 26 WP-5273-2006 unless the accused has an "honourable acquittal" in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an "honourable acquittal". Noticing this, the Court observed : (SCC pp.
609-10, paras 24-26) "Honourable acquittal"
24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635
27 WP-5273-2006 criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 28 WP-5273-2006 India AIR 1964 SC 787 it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC) this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J.
in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor, 1933 SCC OnLine Cal 369 : ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168 which is as follows :
(Raghava case, SLR p. 47, para 8) '8. ... The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice.
Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra-judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 29 WP-5273-2006 been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate.
Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted.
Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term "honourably acquitted".' (Robert Stuart case, ILR pp. 188-89)
26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 30 WP-5273-2006 criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 31 WP-5273-2006 turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."
(emphasis supplied)
23. The Supreme Court in the case of Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani reported in (2018) 1 SCC 285 has held as under:-
"20. Similarly, in our considered view, the Labour Court failed to see that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are two separate proceedings in law. One is initiated by the State against the delinquent employees in criminal court and other i.e. departmental enquiry which is initiated by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 32 WP-5273-2006 employer under the Labour/Service Laws/Rules, against the delinquent employees.
21. The Labour Court should have seen that the dismissal order of the respondents was not based on the criminal court's judgment and it could not be so for the reason that it was a case of acquittal. It was, however, based on domestic enquiry, which the employer had every right to conduct independently of the criminal case.
22. This Court has consistently held that in a case where the enquiry has been held independently of the criminal proceedings, acquittal in criminal court is of no avail. It is held that even if a person stood acquitted by the criminal court, domestic enquiry can still be held--the reason being that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry and that in criminal case are altogether different. In a criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry, it is the preponderance of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25635 33 WP-5273-2006 probabilities. (See Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442).)
23. In the light of this settled legal position, the Labour Court was not right in holding that the departmental enquiry should have been stayed by the appellant awaiting the decision of the criminal court and that it is rendered illegal consequent upon passing of the acquittal order by the criminal court. This finding of the Labour Court is, therefore, also not legally sustainable."
24. Applying the said principle to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority are well reasoned orders. As the petitioner has failed to point out any flaw in the departmental enquiry, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
25. Petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 20-06-2025 10:34:41