Court Cannot Consider Question About Sufficiency Or Adequacy Of Evidence In Support Of A Particular Conclusion Under Article 226: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court cannot consider the question about sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion.
The Court held thus in an original petition which was one of the oldest ones to be pending before the High Court.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “… it is clear that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. The Apex Court observed that it is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which dealt with the question. But, of course the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion.”
Advocate Girija K Gopal represented the petitioner while Advocate P. Ramakrishnan represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioner was working as Deputy Manager at Kozhikode Main Branch of the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter mentioned as ‘Bank’). He joined the Bank as a Cashier in April, 1970 and was promoted as Assistant Manager and then as Deputy Manager. It was his case that he got an unblemished service record of 30 years at various branches of the Bank in various capacities. He was aggrieved by disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which resulted in his removal from service and while the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager (Accounts) at the Piravom Branch of the Bank, he was served with a memo by the General Manager of the State Bank of Travancore alleging that he had committed certain serious lapses/irregularities/ malpractices in the loan accounts in his name rendering him liable for disciplinary action under Chapter X of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.
Dissatisfied with reply to memo by the petitioner, the General Manager ordered an inquiry into the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, a preliminary hearing was conducted and an inquiry report was submitted in which it was observed that some of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from service and aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief General Manager but the same was dismissed, except in scaling down the punishment to remove from service. He again filed a review petition before the Managing Director but it was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “This is one of the oldest original petitions pending before this Court, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The folding files almost disappeared from the racks of our High Court, because, now the writ petitions are to be filed in book form and in flat style. This is a writ petition filed in a folded manner in the year 2001! Of course it had a checkered history. The writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 10.01.2012. Thereafter, it was restored only on 25.07.2023. At the time of filing the writ petition, the original petitioner was aged 51 years. Probably, he might have reached the age of 75 now. The way in which this original petition is argued by the petitioner’s lawyer would show the fighting mood of the petitioner even now. Now the original petition is going to cross a quarter century as far as the pendency is concerned. This is not the fault of this court, because the petitioner slept over the order dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution for a period of 11 years.”
The Court said that it cannot reappreciate the evidence and take a different view invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the finding of the Authorities as far as charges are concerned. It added that Court cannot interfere with the finding of the Inquiring Authority which is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Review Authority invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226.
“As observed by the Apex Court, this Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion in a disciplinary proceeding invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the 1st point is found against the petitioner. … There is no evidence to show that there was any misconduct on the part of the petitioner during his entire service. Since, admittedly, there is no loss sustained to the respondent bank and considering the facts of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty now imposed to the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled”, it observed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there is no case to the disciplinary authority or the Bank that there was any misconduct on the part of the petitioner earlier and that the petitioner completed about 30 years of unblemished service in the Bank. It, therefore, held that in such circumstances, the punishment of “removal from service” is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, set aside the orders to the extent of the punishment imposed on the petitioner alone, and directed the respondent or competent authority to reconsider the punishment of removal from service.
Cause Title- K.M. Habeeb Muhammed v. The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:23638)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Girija K Gopal, B. Sabitha (Desom), and K.N. Vigy.
Respondents: Advocate P. Ramakrishnan