DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERSversusAJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

                          [2021] 1 S.C.R. 51                             51


 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY)                            A
                 AND OTHERS
                                  v.
                   AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                 (Civil Appeal No(s). 17-18 of 2021)                     B
                        JANUARY 05, 2021
       [L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
                 AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
       Service Law: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds –
                                                                         C
Dismissal from service – Enquiry officer noticed in his enquiry
report that the respondent delinquent neither produced any
document nor witness in self-defence and even never requested to
allow him to defend him by a representative of his choice – Enquiry
officer examined all the charges and found charges 2 to 7 proved
while charge no.1 was held to be not proved – Disciplinary authority     D
revisited the record of enquiry and while upholding the finding of
fact in reference to charge no.2-7 disagreed on finding on charge
no.1 and held charge no.1 to be proved – Appellate authority upheld
the finding of the disciplinary authority and confirmed the
punishment of dismissal – High Court set aside punishment of
                                                                         E
dismissal holding that disagreement of disciplinary authority on
charge no.1 caused great prejudice to the employee and, that apart,
the disciplinary/appellate authority passed a non-speaking order
which was in violation of the principles of natural justice – On
appeal, held: Disciplinary authority on receiving the report of
enquiry, if was not in agreement with the finding of enquiry officer,    F
was under an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and
call upon the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before
recording his finding of guilt – Thus, the procedure as prescribed
by law was not followed and that caused prejudice to the respondent
and it was in violation of the principles of natural justice – So far
                                                                         G
as the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority in
reference to charge No. 1 was concerned, that could not be held to
be justified in holding him guilty – But charge no.1 is severable
from the other charges (charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the
respondent which were found proved by the enquiry officer – If the
                                                                         H
                                 51
52            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge no. 1 alone,
     it would have been possible for the Court to declare the order of
     dismissal illegal but finding of guilt being recorded by enquiry officer
     in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the
     disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be interfered with
     and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency.
B
            Judicial Review: Scope of – Held: Power of judicial review
     of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
     process and not the merits of the decision itself – It is to ensure
     fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
C           Constitution of India: Arts.226, 136 – Power of judicial review
     in the matters of disciplinary inquiries – Constitutional Court while
     exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Art.226 or Art.136
     of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact
     arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in a case
     of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support
D    a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably
     and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long
     as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
     the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
           Service Law: Departmental enquiry – It is true that strict rules
E    of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings
     – However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against
     the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon
     which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity
     may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against
F    the delinquent employee.
            Bank/Banking: Bank service – Misappropriation of funds –
     Dismissal from service – In banking business absolute devotion,
     integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee – It
     requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and
G    he deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is
     not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be
     impaired – For this additional reason, High Court erred in setting
     aside order of dismissal of respondent against whom findings of
     the guilt of grave delinquency were established.

H
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                           53
            AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

      Allowing the appeals, the Court                                     A
      HELD : 1. The power of judicial review in the matters of
disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate
authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226
or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is
circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural         B
errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of
natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on
merits as an appellate authority. The Court/Tribunal may interfere
in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any
manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where           C
the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if
based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on        D
the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued. [Paras 23, 25][70-E; 71-C-E]
      State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC
      302:[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 411 ; Government of T.N. and
      Another v. A. Rajapandian (1995) 1 SCC 216 : [1994]                 E
      4 Suppl. SCR 707 ; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India
      and Others (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR
      644 ; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited
      v. Mahesh Dahiya (2017) 1 SCC 768 : [2016]
      9 SCR 879 ; Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others
      (2020) 9 SCC 471 – relied on.                                       F

      State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra
      AIR 1963 SC 779 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 648 ; P.D.
      Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others (2006) 8
      SCC 776 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 454 – referred to.
                                                                          G
      2. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the
disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the
disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings
recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary

                                                                          H
54            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after
     affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may 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. [Para 27][71-G-H; 72-A]
B          3. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable
     to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only
     requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent
     must be established by such evidence acting upon which a
     reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may
     arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the
C    delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises
     cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry
     proceedings. [Para 28][72-B-C]
            4. If the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with
     the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it was under an
D    obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon
     the delinquent for his explanation in the first place before
     recording his finding of guilt and undisputedly the procedure as
     prescribed by law was not followed and that has caused prejudice
     to the respondent and indeed it was in violation of the principles
E    of natural justice. The finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary
     authority in reference to Charge No. 1 could not be held to be
     justified in holding him guilty. But Charge no. 1 in reference to
     which the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has been
     overturned by the disciplinary authority is severable from the
     other charges(Charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the respondent
F    which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the finding
     of fact was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority after
     meeting out objections raised by the respondent delinquent in
     his written brief furnished at different stages. [Paras 34, 35]
     [73-G-H; 74-A-C]
G          5. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings of
     charge no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to
     declare the order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt
     being recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report in reference

H
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                     55
            AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

to charges nos.2-7 and confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate      A
authority was not liable to be interfered and those findings
established the guilt of grave delinquency which was an apparent
error being committed by the High Court while interfering with
the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent
employee. [Para 36][74-C-E]
                                                                    B
     State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra
     AIR 1963 SC 779 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 648 – followed.
     Binny Ltd. v. Workmen (1972) 3 SCC 806 : [1972]
     3 SCR 518 ; Sawarn Singh and Another v. State of
     Punjab and Others AIR 1976 SC 232 – relied on.                 C
      6. In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and
honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. It requires
the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he
deals with money of the depositors and the customers and if it is
not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be      D
impaired. It is for this additional reason, High Court has
committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of
dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal.
[Para 43][77-A-C]
                     Case Law Reference                             E
[1963] Suppl. SCR 648        referred to            Para 16
[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 454      referred to            Para 16
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 411      relied on              Para 23
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 707      relied on              Para 23         F
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644      relied on              Para 23
[2016] 9 SCR 879              relied on             Para 24
(2020) 9 SCC 471             relied on              Para 24
[1963] Suppl. SCR 648        followed               Para 37         G
[1972] 3 SCR 518              relied on             Para 38
AIR 1976 SC 232               relied on             Para 39


                                                                    H
56             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 17-18
     of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2018 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 479 of 2018 and Special
     Appeal Defective No. 357 of 2018.
B          R. Basant, Sr.Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Arvind
     Kumar Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Nihal Ahmad, Ms. Aswathi M.K.,
     Advs for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C           RASTOGI, J. 1. Leave granted.
            2. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13th September,
     2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, the
     instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of the appellant Bank.
            3. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the purpose are
D    that the appellant is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under
     the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The respondent joined service as a
     Cashier/Clerk in Mumfordganj Branch Allahabad on 07th December, 1981.
     While on duty, a misconduct was committed by him for which he was
     placed under suspension in the first place by order dated 14 th August,
     1995 and later the charge-sheet dated 11th April, 1996 was served upon
E
     him detailing seven charges of misappropriation of funds which he had
     committed in discharge of his duties as an employee of the Bank.
            4. It may be relevant to note that for the self-same misappropriation
     of bank’s money by affording fake credits in his various accounts
     maintained at the Branch where he was posted, a criminal case was
F
     also instituted against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
     471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section
     13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
            5. After the charge-sheet dated 11th April, 1996 was served, the
     respondent delinquent submitted his reply dated 08th May, 1996 denying
G    all the charges. The enquiry officer was thereafter appointed by the
     competent authority to hold enquiry in terms of Bipartite Settlement
     applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank. The respondent had
     participated in the disciplinary enquiry and the enquiry officer after holding
     enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Bipartite
H    Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank furnished
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                               57
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

his report of enquiry dated 22nd May, 1999 to the disciplinary authority      A
holding that Charge No.1 was not proved, at the same time, held the
Charge Nos. 2 to 7 proved against him. In his report dated 22nd May,
1999, it has been noticed by the enquiry officer that respondent delinquent
stated in the course of enquiry that he neither wants to say anything
about the prosecution documents nor he wants to ask any question to
                                                                              B
the presenting officer and did not produce any documentary evidence to
substantiate his statement in defence regarding fictitious credits in his
account which was the allegation against him for misappropriation of
funds of the Bank and the fact remains that all the allegations levelled
against the respondent were supported with the documentary evidence
duly audited by the Bank.                                                     C
      6. The extract of the charges with the documents on which the
enquiry officer placed reliance and held the charge to be proved after
discussion in detail against the respondent are reproduced hereunder:-
      Allegation/Charge No.1:
                                                                              D
      On 16.02.1994, saving bank account no.12215 of Shri I.S. Verma
      (an account holder) was debited with Rs.1,09,600/- and part amount
      of Rs.89,600/- was credited to his current account       No. P-51
      without the consent of account holder.
      To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer            E
      produced the following documents:-
      PEX-1
      Debit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.1,09,600.00 relating to
      savings bank account No.12215 of Shri I.S. Verma.
                                                                              F
      PEX-2
      Current account credit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.89,600
      pertaining to current account No. P-15 of Shri Srivastava (E.P.A).
      PEX-3
      Ledger sheet of current account No. P-51.                               G

      The Charge is not proved.
      Allegation/Charge No.2:
      On 25.03.1994, Shri Srivastava entered into a conspiracy with
      some staff members at the Branch with a view in defraud the             H
58     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    bank and accordingly a fake debit was raised in branch clearing
     general account through schedule No.4 for Rs.4,87,300 and this
     amount was first posted in saving bank account No.7547 in favor
     of Shri K.C. Miglani. This amount was subsequently withdrawn
     in instalments on 25.03.1994 and 04.04.1994 and amount of
     Rs.89,150 and Rs.10,000 were misappropriated by him through
B
     credit to his current account No. P-15 on the aforesaid dates.
     To prove the above allegations/charges, the presenting officer
     produced the following documents:
     PEX-4:
C    Branch clearing general account schedule No.4 dated 25.03.1994
     for Rs.4,87,300.
     PEX-5:
     Saving bank credit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.4,87,300
D    pertaining to saving bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C. Minglani.
     PEX-6:
     Debit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.2,36,550 pertaining to
     savings bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C. Miglani.
     PEX-7:
E
     Current account credit voucher dated 25.03.1994 for Rs.89,150
     pertaining to current account No. P-51 of Shri Ajay Kumar
     Srivastava.
     PEX-8: Debit voucher dated 04.04.1994 for Rs.2,40,750 pertaining
F    to saving bank account No.7547 of Shri K.C. MIglani.
     PEX-9
     Current Account credit voucher dated 04.04.1994 for Rs.10600
     pertaining to current account No. P-51 of Shri Ajay Kumar
     Srivastava, actually the voucher is for Rs.10000.
G
     PEX-10
     Current account day book dated 04.04.1994.
     PEX-11
     Ledger sheet of current account No. P-15 of Shri Ajay Kumar
H    Shrivastava
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                           59
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

    The Charge is proved.                                                 A
    Allegation/Charge No.3:
    On 22.09.1994, Shri Srivastava conspired with some staff members
    at the branch with a view to defraud the bank and accordingly a
    fake debit of Rs.5,00,000/- was raised in branch’s saving bank a/
    c and out of the above an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was                 B
    misappropriated by him through credit to his current account No.
    P-51.
    To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer
    produced the following documents:
                                                                          C
    PEX-12 – Saving Bank day book dated 22.09.1994
    PEX-13 – Current A/c day book dated 22.09.1994
    PEX-14 – Ledger sheet of current a/c No. P-51 pertaining to Shri
    Ajay Kumar Srivastava.
                                                                          D
    The charge is proved.
    Allegation/Charge No.4:
    On 30.12.1994, Shri Srivastava entered into a conspiracy with
    some staff members at the branch with a view to defraud the
    Bank and accordingly a fake debit of Rs.5,30,000 was raised in        E
    Branch’s current Account and out of the above amount an amount
    of Rs.2,50,000.00 and Rs.25,000/- were misappropriated by him
    through affording of credit to his current Account No. P-51 and
    Saving Bank A/c. No.11068 favoring Smt. Rashmi Srivastava (his
    wife).
                                                                          F
    To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer
    produced the following documents:
    PEX-15 – Debit voucher dated 30.12.1994 for Rs.5,30,000/-
    pertaining to current account ledger no.2.
    PEX-16 – Current A/c day book dated 30.12.1994                        G
    PEX-17 – Saving bank credit voucher dated 30.12.1994 Rs.25,000/
    - pertaining to saving bank a/c no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi Srivastava.
    PEX-18 – Ledger sheet of saving bank a/c no.11068 of Smt.
    Rashmi Srivastava (page no.70/16).
                                                                          H
60      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    The charge is proved.
     Allegation/Charge No.5:
     On 30.05.1995, Shri Srivastava fraudulently raised a fake debit of
     Rs.2,30,000 in the S.B. A.C. No.11068 fvg. Smt. Rashmi
     Srivastava (his wife) wherein no credit balance was available
B    and credited to his current account No. P-51 with the above amount
     with a view to defraud the Bank.
     To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer
     produced the following documents:

C    PEX-18 – Ledge sheet of saving bank a/c no.11068
     PEX-19 – Debit voucher dated 30.05.1995 for Rs.2,30,000/-
     pertaining to saving bank account no.11068 of Smt. Rashmi
     Srivastava
     PEX-20 – Current A/c credit voucher dated 30.05.1995
D    Rs.2,30,000/- pertaining to current a/c no. P-51 of Smt. Srivastava.
     PEX-21 – Saving bank daybook dated 30.05.1995
     The charge is proved.
     Allegation/Charge No.6:
E    On 31.05.1995, Shri Srivastava fraudulently raised a fake debit of
     Rs.3,60,000 in the S.B. A/c No.11068 fvg. Smt. Rashmi Srivastava
     (his wife) wherein no credit balance was available and got its part
     amount of Rs.3,00,000 credited to his current account no.P-51
     with a view to defraud the Bank.
F    To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer
     produced the following documents:
     PEX-22 – Current A/c credit vouchers dated 31.05.1995 for
     Rs.3,00,000/- pertaining to current a/c no. P-51 of Sri Ajay Kumar
     Srivastava
G
     PEX-23 – Ledger sheet pertaining to saving bank a/c no.11068
     PEX-24 – Ledger sheet pertaining to current a/c no. P-51.
     PEX-25 – Saving bank daybook dated 31.05.1995

H
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                              61
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

      PEX-26 – Current a/c daybook dated 31.05.1995                          A
      The charge is proved.
      Allegation/Charge No.7:
      On 20.10.1993, Shri Srivastava borrowed Rs.35,000.00 from Shri
      K.C. Miglani S.B. Account No.7547, an account holder at the            B
      branch without the permission of the Bank.
      To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer
      produced the following documents:
      PEX-25A – Photocopy of the ch. No.775157 dated 29.10.1993
      for Rs.35,000/-                                                        C
      PEX-26A – Saving bank credit voucher dated 29.10.1993 for
      Rs.35,000/- pertaining to a/c no.7547
      PEX-27 – Debit voucher dated 20.10.1993 for Rs.35,000/-
      pertaining to saving bank a/c no.7547 of Shri K.C. Miglani.
                                                                             D
      PEX-28 – Current a/c credit vouchers dated 20.10.1993 for
      Rs.35,000/- pertaining to current a/c no. P-51 of Shri Ajay Kumar
      Srivastava.
      The charge is proved.
       7. After copy of the detailed report of enquiry was made available,   E
the disciplinary authority took pains to revisit the report of enquiry and
while concurring with the finding of fact in reference to Charge Nos.2-
7 proved by the enquiry officer disagreed with the finding recorded by
the enquiry officer as of charge no. 1 and assigning his reasons of
disagreement held the Charge No.1 to be proved and served the copy of        F
enquiry report dated 29 th June, 1999 along with his finding of
disagreement(for charge no. 1) with the prima facie opinion based on
the record of enquiry to the respondent delinquent calling for his written
explanation.
       8. The reply was submitted by the respondent in reference to          G
communication made by the disciplinary authority dated 29th June, 1999
raising objection to the note of disagreement which was recorded by the
disciplinary authority as of Charge no. 1, at the same time, in reference
to other Charge Nos. 2 to 7 which were held to be proved and prima
facie accepted by the disciplinary authority, no specific objection was
                                                                             H
62             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    raised of any prejudice being caused during the course of enquiry or
     defence in rebuttal not been considered by the enquiry officer or of any
     breach of the procedure prescribed in holding disciplinary enquiry or
     violation of the principles of natural justice, raised vague objections of
     general in nature without supporting any documentary/oral evidence and
     one of the objection of the respondent delinquent was that there was no
B
     requirement to hold a disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case was
     instituted and pending trial/investigation by the CBI and the conclusion
     of departmental enquiry without awaiting the outcome of the investigation/
     trial instituted against him in a pending criminal case, has caused great
     prejudice to him.
C           9. Despite no specific objection being raised by the respondent
     delinquent in reply to the show-cause notice, still the disciplinary authority
     revisited the record of enquiry including the enquiry report, the explanation
     furnished by the respondent while affirming the finding by the enquiry
     officer in its report, confirmed its prima-facie opinion which he has
D    expressed in his communication dated 29th June, 1999 and in terms of
     Para 521(5)(a) of the Sastry Award read with Para 18, 28 of the Desai
     Award as modified by the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February,
     1995 between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India
     Staff Federation, confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service by its
     order dated 24th July, 1999.
E
            10. The respondent preferred departmental appeal against his
     dismissal from service. A bare perusal of the appeal preferred by the
     respondent would indicate that it was just a reflection of the general
     objection raised in reply to the show-cause notice with no specific
     averment in the appeal as to what was the procedural error being
F    committed by the enquiry officer in holding disciplinary enquiry or of any
     violation of the principles of natural justice or any prejudice being caused
     to him of a kind during the course of enquiry or the action being bias or
     malafide initiated for certain ulterior reasons if any, and no specific
     objection was raised in reference to the charge nos. 2-7 stands proved
G    against him other than general objections which are vague and ambiguous
     without any foundation.
           11. The departmental appeal was examined by the appellate
     authority and taking note of the record of enquiry, the appellate authority
     noticed the alleged objections raised by the respondent being so vague
H    with no supporting foundation as reflected from para 2 of the order of
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                               63
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

the appellate authority and after going through record of enquiry and         A
taking note of the nature of allegations levelled by the respondent
delinquent in his appeal, the appellate authority assigned reasons in its
order as reflected from para 3(i) to (viii) and finally holding the appeal
having no merit and the punishment being commensurate to the charges
levelled against him, confirmed the punishment of dismissal which was
                                                                              B
the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition before the High Court
of Allahabad filed at the instance of the respondent delinquent.
        12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court although has passed
a detailed judgment but the focus was throughout on charge no.1 which
was not found to be proved by the enquiry officer in his report but the
disciplinary authority recorded its note of disagreement which according      C
to the learned Single Judge of the High Court has caused great prejudice
and that apart, the disciplinary/appellate authority has passed a non-
speaking order which is in violation of the principles of natural justice
and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge came to be affirmed
by the Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned judgment dated        D
13th September, 2018, which is the subject matter of challenge before
us.
       13. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice
that in the criminal case instituted against the respondent for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and         E
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, the respondent employee was held guilty and convicted by
the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1, Lucknow, by a
judgment dated 31st May, 2019 and sentenced to ten year rigorous
imprisonment with fine and in default to undergo imprisonment of three
months.                                                                       F

       14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that fair opportunity
of hearing was afforded to the respondent delinquent in the course of
enquiry and it was never the case of the respondent that either the
procedure prescribed under the disciplinary rules have not been followed
or the enquiry was held by the authority who was not competent under          G
law or the findings or conclusions which have been arrived at by the
enquiry Officer in his report and confirmed by the disciplinary authority
are not supported by the evidence on record or there was a violation of
the principles of natural justice. In the absence whereof, the plea raised
by the respondent holding that the disciplinary authority has passed a        H
64               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    non-speaking order without application of mind lacks merit and is not
     substantiated from the material on record.
            15. To the contrary, the Enquiry Officer in his detailed report
     recorded cogent reasons in holding the Charge nos. 2-7 proved against
     the delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority while expressing its
B    prima facie opinion and after the copy of the enquiry report along with
     the tentative view of the disciplinary authority being served and affording
     a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent and having taken
     note of his written reply into consideration, has dealt with so called alleged
     objections raised, confirmed its tentative view expressed in upholding
     penalty of dismissal from service after assigning reasons supported by
C    the documents on record. In the given circumstances, the order of the
     learned Single Judge confirmed in LPA by the Division Bench of the
     High Court is unsustainable in law.
            16. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Charge no. 1 is
     concerned, it is true that the enquiry officer has not found charge no. 1
D    proved but the disciplinary authority has recorded its reasons for
     disagreement while expressing a prima facie opinion, a copy of the note
     of disagreement recorded of charge no. 1 along with the report of enquiry
     was served on the delinquent employee, no justification was tendered by
     the delinquent respondent in his written reply to the note of disagreement
E    recorded by the disciplinary authority. Thus, a fair opportunity was
     afforded to him and taking assistance of the Constitution Bench Judgment
     of this Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bidyabhushan
     Mohapatra1 which was further considered by this Court in P.D. Agrawal
     Vs. State Bank of India and Others2, learned counsel submitted that
     the order of dismissal based on the finding of Charge nos. 2-7, which
F    were proved by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary/
     appellate authority holds the respondent delinquent guilty of grave
     delinquency in upholding the penalty of dismissal and interference in the
     order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent by the High
     Court was not justified and needs interference of this Court.
G           17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting
     the impugned judgment submits that the disciplinary authority reiterated
     the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and failed to
     examine the record of enquiry independently and rejected the written
     1
         AIR 1963 SC 779
H    2
         2006(8) SCC 776
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                                 65
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

objections raised by the respondent cursorily and inflicted penalty upon        A
him of dismissal from service by passing a non-speaking order without
due application of mind has been rightly interfered by the High Court in
the impugned judgment.
      18. Learned counsel further submits that when the enquiry officer
has not found charge no. 1 proved and the disciplinary authority disagreed      B
with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report, should
have served in the first place, a note of disagreement, calling for his
explanation and only thereafter it was open for him to examine the record
of enquiry independently in taking its decision in accordance with law
and the procedure which was adopted by the disciplinary authority in
holding the respondent guilty in reference to Charge no. 1 was not only         C
a procedural error but is a great prejudice being caused to the respondent
and such defect could not have been cured by the post-decisional hearing,
which has been rightly upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment
and needs no interference by this Court.
       19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their         D
assistance perused the material available on record.
       20. At the outset, it may be noted that the enquiry officer has
noticed in his enquiry report that the respondent delinquent neither
produced any document nor witness in self-defence. At the same time,
he never requested to allow him to defend him by a representative of his        E
choice. He further stated during the course of enquiry that he neither
wanted to say anything about the prosecution documents nor he wanted
to ask any question to the presenting officer. Taking note of the record
of enquiry including the documents produced by the presenting officer,
brief of the presenting officer, defence and the submission made by the         F
respondent employee, the enquiry officer examined each of the charge
nos. 1 to 7 and after detailed analysis, recorded his finding in reference
to each charge separately and found charge no. 1 not proved, at the
same time charges nos. 2-7 were proved based on the documentary
evidence placed on record.
                                                                                G
       21. The disciplinary authority, after the report of enquiry was
furnished by the enquiry officer, took pains to revisit the record of enquiry
including charge-sheet, reply to the charge-sheet, enquiry proceedings,
findings of the enquiry officer dated 22nd May, 1999, brief of the presenting
officer, brief of the defence (respondent delinquent) and further noticing
                                                                                H
66            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    28 documents which were exhibited PEX-1 to PEX-28 relied by the
     presenting officer and taking note of the written submissions made by
     the respondent employee, after due application of mind recorded its finding
     in upholding the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in his
     report including the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1
     holding to be proved. The detailed reasons assigned in confirming the
B
     order of penalty by its order dated 24th July, 1999 are as under:-
                                       “O R D E R
           Staff: AWARD
           SRI AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CLERK
C          DISCIPLINARY ACTION
              Placed before me are the submissions/show cause notice dated
           the 15th July, 1999 of Shri A.K. Srivastava, Cashier-cum-Clerk,
           under suspension, presently posted at Daryaganj branch in respect
           of the Disciplinary Authority’s tentative order dated 29.6.1999
           wherein it was decided to dismiss him without notice for his gross
D          misconduct relating to the fraudulent transactions perpetrated at
           Mumfordganj branch due to which the bank has suffered
           substantive loss in addition to loss of public image. It was also
           decided that the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended will
           be treated as such and no salary and allowance, except the
E          subsistence allowance already paid, will be payable to him. The
           above order was passed against him on the charges contained in
           the charge-sheet dated 11.4.1996 and he was given an opportunity
           to make submissions, if any, against the above punishment within
           7 days of its receipt, extended to 15 days on his request, failing
           which it would be deemed that he has nothing to submit in this
F          regard and final order will be passed without any further reference
           to him.
           2. Shri A.K. Srivastava has submitted that it is highly illegal to
           have passed the tentative order of dismissal dated 29.6.1999 on
           the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer without seeking
G          his comments thereon. In his view, the report of the Enquiry
           Officer must have been forwarded to him for seeking his
           submissions, if any, which has not been done. No such procedure
           is laid down followed in the bank to forward the enquiry report to
           the charged employees before finalization of the proposed
H          punishment. The procedure in this regard has been followed by
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                             67
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

    enquiry report and related documents have been forwarded to             A
    him along with the tentative order to enable him to submit his
    defence as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed
    on him as per the system and procedure in the bank.
    3. His allegation that prosecution documents had not been given
    to him earlier which deprived him of the reasonable opportunity         B
    of proving himself not guilty as not based on facts as all the
    documents had been made available to him for perusal/comments
    during the enquiry proceedings. The copies of the enquiry
    proceedings had been given to him on the same day on the
    conclusion of the day’s proceedings and the allegation has no
    substance. On the perusal of the page 16 and 17 of the enquiry          C
    proceedings, it is evident that the Enquiry Officer had asked Shri
    Srivastava whether he wants to say anything regarding the
    prosecution documents to which he had replied in the negative, he
    had also stated that he will submit his defence brief within a week,
    for the receipt of the prosecution brief. Likewise the Enquiry          D
    Officer has already clarified on the points raised by Shri Srivastava
    in his letter dated 10.11.1998 which has been found by myself-
    explicit and satisfactory.
    4. The other points raised by Shri Srivastava in his submission
    dated 15.7.1999 sent to the Disciplinary Authority as ‘show cause       E
    notice’ are found irrelevant after close scrutiny. The enquiry
    started on 2.11.1997 and Shri Srivastava neither asked any
    document not desired to produce any witnesses/defence evidence,
    during the enquiry proceeding till its conclusion on 12.5.1998.
    However, when he left that the prosecution has produced enough
    evidences as per enquiry proceedings which will prove his               F
    involvement in the conspiracy to defraud the bank, he started
    levelling the baseless allegations against the bank to delay the
    decision against him.
    5. I have perused all the relevant documents again including the
    enquiry report, his letters dated 10.11.1998 and 15.12.1998 and         G
    do not find any substance for re-opening the enquiry as Shri
    Srivastava had already been given ample opportunity to defend
    himself. The proposed punishment is commensurate to the charges
    levelled and proved against him as discussed in detail in tentative
    order. I, therefore, confirm my tentative order dated 29.6.1999 to      H
68             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A          dismiss Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava without notice in terms of
           para 521(5)(a) of the Sastry Award read with para 18,28 of the
           Desai Award as modified by the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated
           14.2.1995 made between State Bank of India and All India State
           Bank of India Staff Federation. I also order that the period spent
           by Shri Srivastava as suspended be treated as such and no salary
B
           and allowances, except the subsistence allowance already paid,
           will be payable to him.
            I order accordingly.
            Sd/-
C           ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER(IV)
            DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
            DATED: 24th July, 1999"
            22. The departmental appeal which was preferred by the
     respondent employee was revisited by the appellate authority and taking
     note of the objections, all have been separately dealt with by the appellate
D    authority in its order dated 15th November, 1999, the relevant portion of
     which is extracted as under:-
           “3. In order to examine the aforesaid points by the appellant, I
           have gone through the charge-sheets, reply of charge-sheets
           submitted by the charged employee, enquiry proceedings, findings
E          of the Enquiry Officer, tentative order dated the 29th June, 1999,
           final order dated the 24th July, 1999, his service sheet and other
           relevant records of the case. My views are as under:-
               i) Almost all points raised by Shri Srivastava, as above, have
               been suitably replied in the Enquiry Officer’s reply and in the
F              final order dated the 24th July, 1999. The clarification given
               are quite reasonable and I am satisfied with the same. He
               was given full opportunity to defend himself and there was no
               ground for re-opening the enquiry. The charges contained in
               the charge-sheet were not vague, as alleged by him, and all
G              the charges, except one, have been proved in the enquiry.
               ii) The contention of Shri Srivastava that the Enquiry Officer
               should be above the rank of the Disciplinary Authority, the
               officer who has issued the charge-sheet, is not correct. The
               Disciplinary Authority should be above the rank of the Enquiry
H
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                              69
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

      Officer who has been appointed by him for fact finding on his          A
      behalf.
      iii) There is no bar on initiation of the domestic enquiries, if the
      police/investigating agency do not submit their reports within a
      reasonable time and Supreme Court has given several
      judgments in this regard.                                              B
      iv) The Disciplinary Authority reviews the pending suspension
      cases and can order reinstatement of any suspended employee
      after the review. Two employees had been reinstated as the
      charges against them were not serious enough.
      v) The charges of double standards and discriminatory                  C
      treatment are not correct as disciplinary proceedings have been
      initiated against all the erring employees/officers and the
      penalties have been imposed on the basis of the Enquiry
      Officer’s report and due consideration of the malafide/bonafide
      conduct of the employees. Supplementary charge-sheets have             D
      already been served on some of the employees against whom
      penalties have been imposed on the basis of earlier charge-
      sheets.
      vi) The payment of suspension period has not been made, in
      terms of their service rules, to any charge-sheeted employee           E
      and none has been discriminated.
      vii) The appellant has already accepted that he prepared to
      take vouchers without any real cash/transfer transaction for
      regularizing his overdrawn current account and deposit of
      fraudulently drawn amount partly cannot absolve him of                 F
      perpetration of fraudulent transactions and none had promised
      him penalty short of dismissal.
      viii) Non-reply of his letters/representations, meant for delay
      in the domestic enquiry and resultant punishment, cannot be
      treated as violation of natural justice. The enquiry started on
                                                                             G
      30.11.1997 and he defended his case himself while other
      charged employees opted for defence representative. It
      appears that he could not get any representative to defend his
      case in view of serious charges against him. He neither asked
      any document nor desired to produce any witness/defence
                                                                             H
70             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A              evidence during the enquiry proceedings till its conclusion on
               12.5.1998. When he felt that the prosecution has produced
               enough evidences as per enquiry proceedings which will prove
               his involvement in the conspiracy to defraud the bank, he started
               levelling the baseless allegations against the bank to delay the
               decision against him.
B
           4. Thus, the points raised by Sri Srivastava in his appeal have no
           merit. The punishment ordered by the Disciplinary Authority is
           commensurate to the charges levelled against him and the
           contention of the appellant does not hold good in view of the
           charges proved otherwise as discussed in the preceding
C          paragraphs. After careful consideration of the matter in its entirety,
           I am of the view that the Disciplinary Authority is fully justified in
           awarding the punishment of dismissal without notice and treating
           the period spent by Shri Srivastava as suspended as such and no
           payment of salary and allowances, except the subsistence
D          allowance already paid, to him. I, therefore, hold the order of the
           Disciplinary Authority.
               I order accordingly.”
            23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary
     inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged
E    by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of
     the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors
     of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of
     principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case
     on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by
F    this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan3 and later in
     Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian4 and further
     examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi
     Vs. Union of India and Others5 wherein it has been held as under:-
           “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where
G          appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power
           to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a
           disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings
           on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
     3
       1994(6) SCC 302
     4
       1995(1) SCC 216
H    5
       1995(6) SCC 749
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                                    71
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

         reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before        A
         the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR
         718] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon
         consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority,
         is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record
         or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
                                                                                   B
      24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this
Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs.
Mahesh Dahiya6 and recently by the three Judge Bench of this Court
in Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others7.
        25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the           C
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process
and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment
and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any
manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion            D
or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence.
If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of              E
certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot
be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a
decision of authority as a matter of fact.
       26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged
misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and                 F
determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the
findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has
power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
       27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the            G
disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary
authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former,
in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the
reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing
6
    2017(1) SCC 768
7
    2020(9) SCC 471                                                                H
72             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    to the delinquent may 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.
            28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to
     departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of
B    law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by
     such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably
     and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the
     charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture
     or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental
     enquiry proceedings.
C
            29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
     judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would
     not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental
     enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e.,
     where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is
D    such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived
     at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the
     conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be
     sustained.
            30. In the case on hand, the charge-sheet was served upon the
E    respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording
     fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he
     was serving (Mumfordganj Branch) during the relevant period. In all, 7
     charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had
     committed in discharge of his official duty and after affording an
F    opportunity of hearing to the respondent delinquent and due compliance
     of the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer in his report while
     dealing with the preliminary objections raised by the respondent delinquent
     specifically indicated that the details of enquiry report contained 22 pages
     along with documents produced by the presenting officer marked as
     PEX-1 to PEX-28 to establish the allegations/charges levelled against
G    the respondent delinquent who neither produced any document nor
     witness in his defence. It was further indicated that the respondent
     stated in the course of enquiry that he neither wants to say anything
     about the prosecution document nor he wants to ask any question to the
     presenting officer and never requested to seek permission to defend the
H    representative of his choice.
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                                  73
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

       31. After affording an opportunity of hearing at the conclusion of        A
the departmental enquiry, along with the written note submitted by the
presenting officer and by the respondent delinquent, the enquiry officer
marshalled the record of enquiry and based on the documentary evidence
produced by the presenting officer in reference to each charge recorded
a finding in holding charge no.1 not proved and charges nos. 2-7 stood
                                                                                 B
proved against the delinquent respondent.
       32. It was later revisited by the disciplinary authority and apart
from the note of disagreement in reference to charge no. 1, the disciplinary
authority accepted the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer in
his report for charge nos. 2 to 7 and with its prima facie opinion, called
upon the respondent to submit his explanation and after affording an             C
opportunity of hearing and dealing with the objections raised by the
respondent in his written reply expressed its brief reasons while upholding
the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in his report and confirmed
its opinion of inflicting penalty of dismissal from service by order dated
24th July, 1999 and the appellate authority also later revisited on the          D
appeal being preferred and after assigning reasons confirmed the finding
of fact in upholding the order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent
delinquent.
       33. The submission which persuaded the High Court in the
impugned judgment is basically for two reasons. Firstly, before the finding      E
of disagreement being recorded by the disciplinary authority in reference
to Charge no. 1, fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the
respondent delinquent and that has caused prejudice to him. Secondly,
the disciplinary authority/appellate authority has not examined the record
of disciplinary enquiry independently and passed a non-speaking order
without due application of mind and this what prevailed upon the High            F
Court in the impugned judgment in setting aside the penalty inflicted
upon the respondent delinquent.
       34. The submission which was made in regard to the note of
disagreement not being served upon the respondent delinquent as to
Charge no. 1 is concerned, this Court do find substance to hold that the         G
disciplinary authority on receiving the report of enquiry, if was not in
agreement with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, was under
an obligation to record its reasons of disagreement and call upon the
delinquent for his explanation in the first place before recording his finding
of guilt and indisputedly the procedure as prescribed by law was not             H
74             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A    followed and that has caused prejudice to the respondent and indeed it
     was in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are of the
     considered view that so far as the finding of guilt recorded by the
     disciplinary authority in reference to Charge No. 1 is concerned, that
     could not be held to be justified in holding him guilty.
B           35. But this may not detain us any further for the reason that
     Charge no. 1 in reference to which the finding recorded by the enquiry
     officer has been overturned by the disciplinary authority is severable
     from the other charges(Charge nos. 2-7) levelled against the respondent
     which were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the finding of fact
     was confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority after meeting out
C    objections raised by the respondent delinquent in his written brief furnished
     at different stages.
            36. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings of charge
     no. 1 alone, it would have been possible for the Court to declare the
     order of dismissal illegal but on the finding of guilt being recorded by the
D    Enquiry Officer in his report in reference to charges nos.2-7 and
     confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority was not liable to be
     interfered and those findings established the guilt of grave delinquency
     which, in our view, was an apparent error being committed by the High
     Court while interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal inflicted
E    upon the respondent employee.
            37. It is supported by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
     this Court in State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra
     (supra) wherein it has been observed as under:-
           “9. The High Court has held that there was evidence to support
F          the findings on heads (c) and (d) of Charge (1) and on Charge
           (2). In respect of Charge 1(b) the respondent was acquitted by
           the Tribunal and it did not fall to be considered by the Governor.
           In respect of Charges 1(a) and 1(e) in the view of the High Court
           “the rules of natural justice had not been observed”. The
G          recommendation of the Tribunal was undoubtedly founded on its
           findings on Charges 1(a), 1(e), 1(c), 1(d) and Charge (2). The
           High Court was of the opinion that the findings on two of the
           heads under Charge (1) could not be sustained, because in arriving
           at the findings the Tribunal had violated rules of natural justice.
           The High Court therefore directed that the Government of the
H
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                                   75
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

         State of Orissa should decide whether “on the basis of those             A
         charges, the punishment of dismissal should be maintained or else
         whether a lesser punishment would suffice”. It is not necessary
         for us to consider whether the High Court was right in holding
         that the findings of the Tribunal on Charges 1(a) and 1(e) were
         vitiated for reasons set out by it, because in our judgment the
                                                                                  B
         order of the High Court directing the Government to reconsider
         the question of punishment cannot, for reasons we will presently
         set out, be sustained. If the order of dismissal was based on the
         findings on Charges 1(a) and 1(e) alone the Court would have
         jurisdiction to declare the order of dismissal illegal but when the
         findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the    C
         first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be
         interfered with by the High Court and those findings established
         that the respondent was prima facie guilty of grave delinquency,
         in our view the High Court had no power to direct the Governor
         of Orissa to reconsider the order of dismissal….”
                                                                                  D
    38. This was further considered by this Court in Binny Ltd. Vs.
Workmen8 as under:-
         “..It was urged that the Court should not have assumed that the
         General Manager would have inflicted the punishment of dismissal
         solely on the basis of the second charge and consequently the            E
         punishment should not be sustained if it was held that one of the
         two charges on the basis of which it was imposed was
         unsustainable. This was rejected following the decision in State
         of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779],
         where it was said that if an order in an enquiry under Article 311
         can be supported on any finding as substantial misdemeanour for          F
         which punishment imposed can lawfully be given, it is not for the
         Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed
         with the authority in imposing the punishment in question. In our
         view that principle can have no application to the facts of this
         case. Although the enquiry officer found in fact that the respondent     G
         had behaved insolently towards the Warehouse Master, he did
         not come to the conclusion that this act of indiscipline on a solitary
         occasion was sufficient to warrant an order of dismissal….”

8
    1972(3) SCC 806                                                               H
76               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A         39. Yet again, in Sawarn Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab
     and Others9, this Court held:-
               19. In view of this, the deficiency or reference to some irrelevant
              matters in the order of the Commissioner, had not prejudiced the
              decision of the case on merits either at the appellate or revisional
B             stage. There is authority for the proposition that where the order
              of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some
              relevant and existent, and others irrelevant and non-existent, the
              order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority
              would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and
              existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant or non-existing
C             grounds could not have affected the ultimate decision [see State
              of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779].
           40. The Constitution Bench has clearly laid down that even after
     the charges which have been proved, justify imposition of penalty, the
     Court may not exercise its power of judicial review.
D
           41. So far as the submission which has prevailed upon the High
     Court holding that the order passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority
     was a non-speaking order passed with non-application of mind, in our
     considered view, is not factually supported by the material available on
     record.
E
             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
F    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
G    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
     the respondent employee from service, rejected by order dated 15 th
     November, 1999. After detailed discussion, we are unable to accept the
     finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting
     9
H        AIR 1976 SC 232
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) v.                                77
     AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]

aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority which          A
deserves to be set aside.
       43. Before we conclude, we need to emphasize that in banking
business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for
every bank employee. It requires the employee to maintain good conduct
and discipline and he deals with money of the depositors and the customers     B
and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would
be impaired. It is for this additional reason, we are of the opinion that
the High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the
order of dismissal of the respondent dated 24th July, 1999 confirmed in
departmental appeal by order dated 15th November, 1999.
                                                                               C
       44. Consequently, the appeals deserve to succeed and are
accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court impugned dated
13th September, 2018 is hereby set aside. No costs.
       45. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
                                                                               D
Devika Gujral                                               Appeals allowed.




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H