In an appeal under Letters Patent against the dismissal of a challenge to a departmental penalty order, the Division Bench held that the appeal fails as the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence where findings were upholds by inquiry and appellate authorities.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
LPA No. 531 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 531 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision 20.08.2010
J.D. Singh
-----Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India and others
---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing C.W.P. No. 18208 of 2009 filed by the appellant. The appellant was working as Branch Manager Central Bank of India-respondent (Middle Management Grade Scale-II). As many as 9 charges were framed against him and he was found guilty of many of them. The charges levelled against him have been adverted to by the learned Single Judge in para 2 of the judgment and it has been found that the charges Nos. 1, 4 and 7 (iii & iv), 8 and 8 were partly proved, whereas charges No. 2, 3, 5, 6 (i, ii, iv & v) and 7 (i, ii & iii) were fully proved, whereas charge No. 6 (iii & vi) not proved. The writ petitioner-appellant has failed to persuade the
LPA No. 531 of 2010 (O&M)
-2-
learned Single Judge that the quantum of punishment is liable to be interfered with. Another attempt has been made in this appeal by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant by raising the arguments that the charges cannot be deemed to be proved. In that regard, he has made a reference to the enquiry report where evidence concerning charge No.3 has been discussed. According to the learned counsel, the appellant did not avail any bogus T.A. and findings are not well-based.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The defence taken by the appellant before the disciplinary authority was that he inadvertently claimed the T.A. bill. However, still effort was made to explain that the appellant had gone to destination (village) and the Sarpanch of the village was produced as a witness. The Enquiry Officer recorded the findings against the writ petitionerappellant, which have been upheld by the departmental authorities and also by the learned Single Judge. The stand of the petitionerappellant cannot co-exist with evidence produced. Either he has claimed T.A. bills inadvertently or he had gone there and rightly claimed the bill. It can not be both ways. In any case, we cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence and record a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer and other authorities. It is well settled that on the basis of the same evidence, if one authority has reached a conclusion by recording a finding then the Appellate Authority is not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence
LPA No. 531 of 2010 (O&M)
-3-
and take a view different than the one taken by the Enquiry Officer
or Disciplinary Authority. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal.
For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal fails and the
same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 20, 2010 Atul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court.interfaces with the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Judge in a departmental disciplinary proceeding.
Whether a disciplinary inquiry finding that an employee fraudulently claimed T.A. bills can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
J.D. Singh
Central Bank of India
M.M. KUMAR
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
