Holding that “in a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt”, the Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal against an order of a high court that had set aside the dismissal of a bank employee.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
Ruling in State Bank of India and Ors v Narendra Kumar Pandey, the Supreme Court held that Allahabad High Court was not justified in interfering with an order of dismissal passed after a full-fledged inquiry, especially when the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules provide for an alternative avenue of appeal. The court ruled that it is a well accepted principle of law “that the high court while exercising powers under article 226 of the constitution does not act as an appellate authority”.
Narendra Kumar Pandey, a bank official, was accused of 12 serious charges in February 1995 and was dismissed in March 1999 after a departmental enquiry. Without resorting to alternative courses of action available under the bank’s service rules, Pandey had moved Allahabad High Court alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The high court had ruled that the dismissal was illegal as witnesses were not examined and documents were not given to Pandey.
The Supreme Court ruled that as the inquiry officer had examined some 40 documents and was convinced of financial irregularities, there was no need for witnesses: “In a case, where the charged officer had failed to inspect the documents in respect of the allegations raised by the bank and not controverted it is always open to the Inquiring Authority to accept the same.”
[/ihc-hide-content]
The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
