Holding

Findings of the Disciplinary Authority, recorded with reasons and supported by evidence, are immune from judicial review, and the promotion entitlement under the sealed‑cover procedure must be given effect from 1‑Jan‑1986.

Summary

Degla Suryanarayana, a middle‑management officer of Bank of India, was found fit for promotion in 1981 but the promotion was withheld due to pending criminal cases. After being acquitted, he sought promotion and was granted ad‑hoc promotion by the High Court, which also ordered a departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct. The enquiry officer cleared all charges, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed on one charge and imposed a one‑stage pay reduction. The High Court set aside the disciplinary finding as perverse, but the Supreme Court held that the Disciplinary Authority, having recorded reasons and based on sufficient evidence, was immune from judicial interference and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the promotion entitlement under the sealed‑cover procedure from 1‑Jan‑1986, while dismissing the petition to quash the charge‑sheet and the order of punishment. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed.

Issues considered

The High Court's power to interfere with findings of a Disciplinary Authority in a departmental enquiry.
Whether a Disciplinary Authority must record reasons when disagreeing with an Enquiry Officer and may set its own findings.
The applicability of strict rules of evidence to departmental enquiry proceedings.
The validity of withholding promotion on the ground of pending criminal cases and the operation of the sealed‑cover procedure.
The propriety of setting aside a punishment of reduction of pay imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

departmental enquirydisciplinary authoritysealed cover procedurepromotionjudicial reviewservice lawevidencemisconductreduction of pay

Judgment

IA I ',, BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
v. '"
DEGALASURYANARAYANA

1= .r • ,· JULY 12, 1999
''. ~·J,w#·•tf .. ~·"'" 1, ~~J~1w
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. J,,AH<;>TI, JJ.] L·

Service Law:

l;·,,, '' D~pcirtinental Enquiry-Findings of the Enquiry Officer-Discipiinary
1

C Authority holding a different view-Held-disciplinary Authority in case of
disagreement has to record the reasons for disagreement and record its own
findings if the evidence available on record is sufficient for such exercise or
to remit to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and report-Strict rules of
evidence not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings.

D Promotion~ealed cover Procedure-A well established concept in
service jurisprudence-Respondent found fit for promotion by DPC but
promotion withheld on account of pendency of criminal cases on the date of
DPC's decision-Criminal cases ending in acquittal but subsequently
departmental enquiry initiated -Held : Promotion due in the past could not ..
E be withheld on the ground of initiation of departmental enquiry at a later
point of time.

Misconduct-Findings recorded by disciplinary Authority-Whether
subject to Judicial review-Held: Findings of Disciplinary Authority immune
from interference-High Court exceeded the bounds of power of judicial
F review available to it while exercising writ jurisdiction over a departmental
disciplinary enquiry proceedings--Constitution of India, Art. 226.

Respondent was working in Middle Management Grade III in the
appellant Bank and was found fit for promotion in 1981. A complaint was
G made to CBI against him alleging certain misappropriation. He was
interv_iewed for promotion in the year 1981-82 but sealed cover procedure
was followed on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. In the year
1983 two criminal cases were filed by C.B.I. against him. He was again
considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.1.86 but the same was not given effect to
on account of pendency of criminal cases. He was acquitted of all the charges
H · but order of promotion was not issued. Being aggrieved Respondent filed
824
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA 825
Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court by an interim order in the A
said writ petition directed that Respondent be promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f.
1.1.86 and granted liberty to the appellant to enquire into the matter
departmentally. On 3.12.91 a charge sheet was issued to the Respondent
alleging commission of misconduct by him. Enquiry Officer recorded a
fmding that nine of the charges levelled against him was proved. Disciplinary B
Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on
one of the charges and after issuing show c1mse notice found the Respondent
guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment of reduction of pay by one
stage. High Court held that the disciplinary authority's finding was too
perverse and set aside the punishment and also that Resp~ndent was entitled
to promotion even earlier to 1.1.86 and directed to regularise his promotion C
from that date.

Before· this court the question which arose for consideration was
whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the fmdings recorded
by the Disciplinary Authority in reversal of ~he findings record_ed by the
~~~~ D
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. The Disciplinary Authority on receiving the report of the
Enquiry Offi~er may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the
latter. In cas'e of disagreement the Disciplinary Authority h.as to record the E
reasons for disagreement and record ·his own findings if the evitlence on
record is sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the Enquiry
Officer for further enquiry and report. [831-F] , · ''

2. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry
proceedings. The. only requirement of law is that the allegation against the F
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 conjectures or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in
departmental enquiry proceedings. [831-G-H] " G

3. The finding so recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was immune
from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review available
to the court and therefore, the High Court clearly exceeded the bounds of
power of judicial review available to it while exercising writ jurisdiction ove·r
a departmental disciplinary enquiry proceedings. [833-C-DJ H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A Union of India v. HC. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718, followed.

4. Sealed cover procedure is well established concept in service
jurisprudence and is adopted when an employee is due for promotion,
increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against
him and hence the findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of
B promotion increment etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the
proceedings in question are over. (833-E-F]

Union of India etc. etc. v. K. V. J(lnkiraman etc. etc., AIR (1991) SC
2010, relied on.

C 5. When the promotion committee held its proceedings, there were no
departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent and
therefore the High Court was right in directing the promotion to be given
effect to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1.1.86.
(833-H; 834-A)

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3053-54 of
1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.97 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. No. 1159-60of1996.

E Raj Birbal, R. Khanna and Surya Kant for the Appellant.

P.S. Mishra, G.R. Prasad Ms. K. Sen, Ms. U. Dubey, Chandra Shekhar,
S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, Vishnu Sharma and V. Sreedhar Reddy for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Degla Surya~arayana, the respondent has been in the
employment of the Bank of India, the appellant. In the year i 981 he was
working in Middle Management Grade-II and was due for promotion. On
16.4.1981 the appellant made a complaint against the respondent to the CBI
G alleging certain misappropriations. While the complaint was under investigation
the respondent was interviewed for promotion in the year 1981-82. The result
of the interview was withheld on the ground of pendency of criminal
proceedings against him. In 1983, two criminal cases were filed by the CBI
implicating the respondent before as Special Court at Visakhapatnam. In the
year 1987, he was again considered for promotion. However, he was informed
H that though he was found fit for promotion with effect from 1.1.1986, the
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 827

finding of the promotion committee was not being given effect to on account A
of the pend ency of the criminal cases. The criminal cases ended on 17 .8.1988
favourably to the respondent acquitting him of the offences charged. However,
the order of promotion was not issued.

In the year 1990, CWP No. 17490/90 was filed by the respondent seeking
relief of the order of promotion being issued and given effect to. By an interim B
order dated 3.4.1991, the High Court directed the respondent to be promoted
on ad hoc basis with effect from l. l.1986. There was a writ appeal wherein
the Division Bench confirmed the interim order of th~ learned Single Judge
but at the same time went on to add an observation in its order that the
employer was at liberty to enquire into the matter departmentally though ad C
hoc promotion as ordered by the Single Judge had to be given.

On 3.I2.I991 a charge-sheet was given to the respondent alleging
commission of misconduct by him. The statement of allegations accompanying
the charge-sheet referred to certain incidents of the years I 973 to I 978. The
respondent filed CWP No. I2577/92 mainly contending that the domestic D
enquiry related to stale matter and therefore the charged-sheet dated 3.12. l 99I
was liablt< to be quashed. The writ petition was however dismissed consequent
where upon the enquiry proceeded ahead. On I I. IO. I 994 the Enquiry Officer
submitted a report recording a finding that none of the charges levelled
against the respondent was· proved. The Disciplinary Authority however
disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on one of the E
charges namely charge l (b) and called upon the respondent to show cause
why he be not punished. By order dated 4.3. I995 the Disciplinary Authority
reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge l (b) and held the
respondent guilty of misconduct and imposed upon him the punishment of
reduction of pay one stage which ~s a major punishment. F
CWP No. 12577/92 was at this point of time subject matter of Writ
Appeal No. 112/93. Before the Division Bench hearing the writ appeal the
respondent sought for the writ petition being amended in view of the
subsequent event of a major punishment having been inflicted on him. The
Division Bench permitted the respondent to amend the writ petition so as to G
seek the relief of the punishment order being set aside.
"'
The learned Single Judge held that though the Disciplinary Authority
had jurisdiction to record a finding at variance with the one recorded by
Enquiry Officer, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding
arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority was perverse. Accordingly, the learned H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty
passed against the respondent. In the writ petition seeking the relief of
promotion, the learned Single Judge held that the respondent was not entitled
to any promotion earlier than l. l. l 986, but the bank was agreeable to upholding
the respondent's entitlement to promotion with effect from l. l.l 986. The
B promotion given to the respondent with effect from l. l .1986 which was treated
as ad hoc pursuant to the order of the Court was directed to be regttlarised
from that date followed by release of all consequential benefits. The two writ
'petitions were thus disposed of by a common order.
1 •~ '• '1: f', r Jf - . •' . I ' .

· ''flie'appeilant-Bank filed'two writ appeals which have been disposed of
€ . by: a co1mmon order bY.tlle1 Division 13ench,'Of the Higli' Colnt. Ttie ·order ·of
the learned- Singlet Judge' has 1 b~en upheld I hnd' botli' 1tiie 'appeals' ·1;ein have
~ ~~~~i~sed,·]~~ ~ggr~~ve1 ~~~~ 0~}~1di;a. ~~s ;:qt,11f, up to, !~is .9m,IJ ,seeking
:~R7,c_i_~~.. l~a~e Y?..~PP:~l ~hi,c~,h~~ ..b~~.~ ~~t~~·:-,.,! 2,,_. •_. J'' 1,, m,, ·~1..•·n.-,
·,,1 1 11~;. ·i..· 1
, ,. .:• l· j,· ,t_, il- 1 ~4~.··· • .; ~>' L·.'t1 :J.., · J~_,r; ... --~· 1 ""iJ _11.;

'D _i. "''f''~ef9~e }~~s. ~:O?f!,,~p~ c~p~,?.v~~sy "~~si c~.l}~e~,,a~oHI}~, th~,i,~~~~!<?n
· whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in interfering
'l': I . '·' , • J.f JJ"1l -LJ..I' .a·1 ... i .;1u1 11,,, IJ. !~~ l ..JJl"-U! ".)>..,V 1d lJ'JJtil:. I f U'..11..1(1,.1
with the findings
J.1 1 _,..,, j 1• i~ 1_•,..,..,,
recorded
' ' ' . f_,, :!I-'
by r. the
~
Disciplinary
ill1:!l ..
:if,,,· ~I 1/r
Authority
).t
in reversal of the
i .U.J)l('..l ..JU ·;fJ OJ .•..to·t .• ' i , f '
...;jl
0

findings
. __ , !.'· J
recorded
llf 1L· '
by the Enquiry
... •.·1 I . . •
Officer. As already stated, the Disciplinary
I L:".JL~\ l.J~Jl, . .J"J tdli "ll,J~" ... Ji') r1'1'1.J ~~#·lo

'/~?!9~.ri~ ~~ !o~n1d :~~e ~e~~o~~en_t 1 ~~11lW ?f_,t~~ 1~~a,i;g~),~~) ~n~-H~.~r~fgJe
1"
the .t'tll1
.·,·
facts ~··.
relevant
{',")I
to.'"ii..o
this l.
charge
11 ... :.
alone '1>;.,
.....'.I
are;;)1'
being briefly
1 ( ... II
stated hereinafter.
_'.p_,..t '··~."]' :...~: ;,;·1·1 ~'...

E •--'.· ., . " .., ··· .- ,"' , . ;., ; ,,.,. ,,1 'F1I, ., ·,1 fl!t1111t :ir: "";, . :u1-.:" L
· · - One Degala Sri Ramulu (DS. for short) had savings bank account No .
..-'4•·-
;-, -, . ; - •,,.,, · )""\ .. · i•#fj.'--. lt .J lj,1 I '.J'.' -" -L•.
1. 1 . ~I_
,...-1·..;tt.i. r··~:~L~' ~J

14 at K,akinada
') J 1 ,.Lh~/·
: \
Branch
.. 1 ·
of the appellant
,,_, ·.. L- J
Bank with .a balance amount
re: LJ.._ji-· d •,I
,,.....~ ~#·
J1.
of Rs.
·1 f l ) "
1Jt.,~ 1 ,1

.,.2?-f.~)?aise as_~on 2_8.~.19~'.7; }ie_ j~s.~.e~--~ ..~h~qu~)_n 1~~a-~ ,acc?~n~. ~n, th.~t~ ?~re
!,
for~ ,-"'Rs. i 14,000
"I•'i,
and deposited ~.thel- same in his,#,town' SB
'.; l1 •,1·.1
j " H1
il ··,'
account
~, 1:,1.1_
No. 645 with
, 1 II ( '-• (.-,,J
1

. anakaple branch of the Bank where the respondent was working as a Branch
F Manager. On 1. 7.1977: the ;bspri~ci~~t ~~cti~~ed ~'o ~·~~ 'ida~~ a~~~nti~g
1to Rs. 14;000 to M Peddaraju and, V; :Nageswara_,Rao,~who:credited those
amounts into. their respective savings bank accounts. in Anakapalle,branch
and transferred the same on 2.7.1977 to SB account No. 645 o_fDS. On'3.7.~977
DS withdrew a sum of Rs. 14,000 from that account and credited the same in
G SB account No. 14 in Kakinada Branch on 4.7.1977. The.cheque dated 28.6.1977
for Rs. 14,000 was then cleared by Kakinada Branch qn 5;7.1977 and the same
was honoured. There were two charges against the respondent. Charge no.
1 consisted of six items and the statement of'allegations accompanying the
1

charge-sheet stated that to the extent of Rs. 26;854.64 (referable to· six
transactions including the transaction relating to Rs. 14,000 set out herein-
H before), the respondent had committed misconduct in" as much as Regulation
/
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 829
3(1) of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 A
requires each officer employee to take at all times all possible steps to ensure
and protect the interests of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
• unbecoming of a Bank Officer and failure to do so is prescribed by Regulation
24 to be misconduct punishable under the Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976; Charge No.2 alleged appropriation B
of the funds of the Bank by the respondent for himself and/or others. The
Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent of both the charges (including all
the sub-heads of charge no. -I). As to charge l (b) the· Enquiry Officer held
as· under :-

"The evidence brought out by the Presenting Officer indicates
c
that some of the documents co~ected with the instant allegation
were written/signed by the CSO. However, the matter regcµ-ding sanction
of clean loans has not, been clearly established, in the.absence of clear
testimony, -by way of saqctioned proposals, copies,. the then Dealing
Officer's evidence and related data. D
t 1 1 I

It is common practice in a small/mediu01. sized branch for the
Manager to assist in writing vouchers, filling up vouchers and rendering
customer service in any such w~y. ~s a'matt~r,offa~t, ~he~ customers
.. directly meet the Branch Manager, rendering such personalised service
goes ·a long way for future business ~elations. Keep.~ng thi~ in mind, E
I would not directly relate the CSO's handwriting/signature on some
documents, as a direct indication of hi~ involvemen~ in the irregularity
cited.

More importantly the fundamental Articles of Charge No. I, stresses
on misappropriation of funds by the CSO and securing by him of a F
pecuniary advantage. This aspect has not been touched· upon by the
Presenting Officer.

Added to this fact, certain documentary evidences were not made
available. In my opinion, the Presenting Officer has not brought out
full details relating to the allegation. As such the allegation could not G
be substantiated. My finding is that the allegation is not proved."

The Disciplinary Authority reversing the abovesaid finding held as
under:-

· "I find from the records of the Departmental Enquiry that the H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A Investigation Officer of CBI who investigated into the allegation against .,..
Sri D. Suryanarayana was produced as witness before the Departmental
Enquiry. Sri Saibaba, Investigating Officer of CBI (MW-3) in his
deposition has stated that Sri M Peddaraju and Sriv. Nageswara
Rao both given the address as Clo S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagaram,
Anakapalle for the purpose of obtaining the loans. Similarly Sri Degala
B Kannayya Kapu and SriD. Sriramulu also gave their address as Clo
S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalle. It is clear from the
deposition of the Investigating Officer that these two persons who are
not ordinarily residents at anakapalle, have approached Shri D.
Suryanarayana, the then manager so that they can avail loan for some
c reason or other. Similarly Sri D. Sriramulu and Sri D. Kannayya Kapu
had also given their address as Clo S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagram,
Anakapalle. It has been established during the departmental enquiry
that all the above were having nexus some connection with each other
which was known to Shri D. Suryanarayana. Further the management
witness Sri K. Simhachalam, the then officer, Anakapalle branch (MW4)
D who deposed before the Departmental Enquiry confirmed the
handwriting of Sri D. Suryanarayana on the various vouchers/
transactions by which loans were sanctioned to Shri M Peddaraju
and Sri V. Nageswara Rao., MW-4 further established that the
vouchers by which the loan was transferred to the SB account of Sri
E D. Sriramulu and Sri D. Kannayya Kapu were also in the handwriting
of Sri D. Suryanarayana. The documents marked as exhibit numbers

-..
ME-2 to ME-16 are documents pertaining to sanction of loans to Sri
Peddaraju and Sri V. Nageswara Rao by Shri D. Suryanarayana on
the above said documents. All these would go to show that Sri D.
Suryanarayana sanctioned loans to Sri Peddaraju and Sri V.
F Nageswara Rao and transferred the funds to SB/Ale No. 645 of Sri
D. Sriramulu who could withdraw the amount even though he was not
having sufficient balance in his account with Kakinada Branch.

MW-3 confirmed that Sri D. Sriramulu was having a SB account
No. 14 at Kakinada branch and balance in the account was only Rs.
G 70.30 as on 28.6.77. Thus it is clearly established that Sri D. Sriramulu
was not having sufficient balance on the date he issued-the cheque
on Kakinada branch. The material on record alongwith deposition of
the MW-3 and MW-4 would clearly establish that Sri D.
Suryanarayanan has extended undue favours to Sri Degala Sriramulu
H and allowed him to draw cash to the tune of Rs. 14,000 even though
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 831

he was not having sufficient balance in the account at Kakinada A
branch.

I had also gone through the defence wherein it is pointed out that
there is no evidence to show that Sri D. Kannayya Kapu, Sri D.
Sriramulu, Sri V. Nageswarq Rao and Sri Peddaraju, are related to
each other. Even though no evidence is on record to show that they B
are close relatives of each other there is nexus between the above
I
named persons in as much as every one had given the following
address at Anakapalle :

Clo S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagar, Anakapalle.
c
This would indicate that they are not ordinarily residents at
Anakapalle and known to each other. The defence contended that the
management could not prove that the balance in the SB account at
Kakinada Branch was only Rs. 70.30. on 28.6.77. In this connection the
investigating officer has categorically stated in his deposition that the
balance in the SB account No. 14 of the Kakinada branch on 28.6.77 D.
was only Rs. 70.30. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
statement of investigating officer. The Investigating Officer had gone
through various records at the time of investigation and his deposition
in connection with factual position of the matter can be accepted. I,
therefore, hold that the allegation No. l(b) as stated in the Statement E _
of Allegations issued to Sri D. Suryanarayana in support of Article of
Charge No. 1 is proved."

The law is well settled. The Disciplinary Authority on receiving the
report of the Enquiry Officer may or may not agree with the findings recorded
by the latter. In case of disagreement, the Disiciplinary Authority has to F
record the reasons for disagreement and then to record his own findings if
the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit
the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and report.

Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry G
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 H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of malajides 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 findings. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the
evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there
B is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental
authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union ofIndia v. HC. Goel, [1964]
4 SCR 718 the Constitution Bench has held :-

"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
c 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."
D Regulation 7 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1976 accords with the settled service jurisprudence and
provides as under :-

"7. Action on the inquiry report :

E (I) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring
Authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the
case to the Inquiring Authority for fresh or further inquiry and report
and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the
further inquiry according to the provisions of regulation 6 as far as
may be.
F
(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings
of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons
for such disagreement and record its own findings bn such charge,
if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.

G (3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on
all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer
employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 8,
-
.,.

make an order imposing such penalty.

H (I) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on
BANK OF INDIA v. DEGALA SURYANARAYANA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 833
all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty A
is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee
concerned."

1-' In the case at hand a perusal of the order dated 5. l .1995 of the disciplinary
Authority shows that it has taken into consideration the evidence, the finding
and the reasons recorded by the Enquiry Officer and then assigned reasons B
for taking a view in departure from the one taken by the Enquiry Officer. The
Disciplinary Authority has then recorded its own findings setting out the
evidence already available on record in support of the finding arrived at by
the Disciplinary Authority. The finding so recorded by the Disciplinary
,_.
Authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of
judicial review available to the Court. We are therefore of the opinion that the
c
learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were
not right in setting aside the finding of the Disiciplinary Authority and
restoring that of the Enquiry Officer. The High Court has clearly exceeded the
bounds of power of judicial review available to it while exercising writ
jurisdiction over a departmental disiciplinary enquiry proceeding and therefore D
the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be
sustained to that extent. The appeal filed by the bank of India deserves to
be allowed to ·that extent.

However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different footing and
E
the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained. The sealed cover
procedure is now a well established concept in service jurisprudence. The
procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion , increment etc.
but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the
findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment
etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question F
are over (see Union ofIndia etc. etc. v. K. V. Jankiraman etc.etc, AIR (1991)
SC 20 IO, 2113. As on 1.1.1986 the only proceedings pending against the
respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended into acquittal of the
respondent wiping out with retrospective effect the adverse consequences,
if any, flowing from the pendency thereof. The departmental enquiry
G
proceedings were initiated with the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3 .12.1991.
•- In the year 1986-87 when the respondent became due for promotion and when
the promotion committee held its proceedings, there were no departmental
enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed cover
procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the
year 1986-87 withheld for the D.E. proceedings initiated at the fag end of the H
~ ~

.
.-

834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R. I-
,_
A year 1991.. The High Court was therefore right in directing the promotion to _,;.
"
be given effect to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1.11986. In
~1
the facts and circumstances of the case, the. order of punishment made in the
year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion ·
-f.;
earned on 1.1.1986.

B For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand partly allowed and it is
directed that the Civil Writ Petition No. 17490/90 filed in the High Court by
the respondent seeking a writ of mandamus giving effect to the promotion of
the appellant with effect from 1.11986 shall stand allowed and the orders made
by the learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench in that regard are
C maintained. The Civil Writ Petition No. 12577/92 seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 3 .12.1991, subsequently amended to seek the relief of
setting aside the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage by the order
dated 4.3.1995 of the Disciplinary Authority, is directed to be dismissed. the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench, to the extent
to which order of the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment imposed by
D him have been interfered with by. the High Court are set aside. The appeals
be ~eated as disposed of accordingly. In view of the partial success there will
be no order as to costs.

A.M. Appeals partly allowed.

-
..