In Brief
A bank manager dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry for alleged misappropriation under an IRDP scheme challenged his termination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in quashing the dismissal. The manager's guilt could not be established: seven purported beneficiaries' identities were unverified; the confessional statement of other employees (not signed by the manager) could not incriminate him; and the subsidy register was primarily maintained by the cashier. The charge sheet issued seven years after the alleged incident, combined with lack of independent evidence, made the findings perverse. The Court upheld reinstatement with full arrears and benefits.", <parameter name="principles">["Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited but not a mere formality; minimum scrutiny is required to ensure findings follow from evidence.", "A finding of 'no evidence' or perversity cannot be assessed without examining the materials and findings of the disciplinary authority.", "The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability, not strict legal proof, but findings must still rest on some evidence.", "Confessional statements made by third parties, not signed by or admitting the guilt of the charged employee, cannot be used to incriminate that employee.", "Public servants are held to higher standards of integrity, but this does not lower the evidentiary threshold needed to prove their guilt.", "Where the enquiry authority relied on a document not admitted into evidence and not signed by the delinquent officer, and the authors did not depose, the finding based thereon is perverse.", "A charged employee's past minor misconduct cannot substitute for evidence of current grave misconduct.", "In cases of delay in proceedings (seven years), the difficulty in producing contemporaneous evidence and the change in management weigh against establishing guilt."], <parameter name="obiter">["The bank was correct in contending that appellate review cannot ordinarily be undertaken in Article 226 proceedings, but this principle does not prevent examination of whether findings rest on evidence.", "Public servants, especially bank officials dealing with others' money, are expected to display integrity of a higher standard than other employees, but this does not alter the evidentiary requirements.", "The paradox that Sri Madan Mohan Saha, who confessed to misconduct, received only a mild penalty (withholding of increments) while the respondent, who neither admitted guilt nor had credible evidence against him, was dismissed, underscores the disproportionality of the punishment."]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.