Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.71 seconds)The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996
" 15. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] , it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit which resulted in the case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance."
Chairman-Cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. ... vs K. Meerabai on 23 January, 2006
25. As held in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai [(2006) 2 SCC 255 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 265] the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmental disciplinary matters is limited.
Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999
The observations of this Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana[(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] are quite instructive: (SCC pp. 768-69, para 11)
"11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides 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 finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union of India v. H.C. Goel[AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held: (AIR p. 370, para 23)
''23. ... the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not."
Gen.Manager,Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors vs Daya Singh on 28 July, 2010
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of General Manager (P), Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Daya Singh; (2010) 11 SCC 233, has held that a perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at and unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. It has also been held that the scope of judicial review for the High Court in a departmental matter is limited. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides 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 finding. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Bhola Nath Singh & Ors on 28 February, 1997
26. Regarding the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a departmental inquiry, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh & Others; (1997) 3 SCC 657 has held that the High Court, in the proceedings under Article 226, does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
State Bank Of India And Anr vs Bela Bagchi And Ors on 31 August, 2005
In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Bela Bagchi; (2005) 7 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/ employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
Union Bank Of India vs Vishwa Mohan on 7 April, 1998
In the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan; (1998) 4 SCC 310, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer and if this is not observed, the confidence of the public/ depositors would be impaired.
Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009
24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v.CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] . Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] . The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained.
1