Case title: K.M.Habeeb Muhammed vs. The Managing Director, State Bank Of Travancore, Head Offic, Thiruvananthapuram and Anr.
Case no.: O.P. No. 38705 of 2001
Decided on: 27.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner was transferred from Kumily Branch to Piravom Branch in 1995. A demand loan (vehicle loan) from 1991 was transferred to Piravom Branch with liabilities. Allegations of altering figures to malign the petitioner were raised. The disciplinary authority found possible involvement in figure alteration. The disciplinary authorities accepted the report without fault found. The petitioner’s involvement in altering figures was not entirely ruled out. Various exhibits were presented during the proceedings. Charges related to loan manipulation were partly proved. The inquiry report findings were accepted by the disciplinary authorities. The petitioner’s service record and lack of misconduct evidence were considered. The punishment of removal from service was deemed disproportionate. The inquiry officer found charge No. 4 not proved.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.
Judicial Review: The document refers to the power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts under Article 226, Article 32, or Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This involves correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
Principles of Natural Justice: These principles ensure fairness and impartiality in decision-making processes, including disciplinary inquiries.
Legal Standards for Disciplinary Proceedings: The legal standards require that allegations against a delinquent employee must be established by evidence that a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants emphasized the importance of rooting out corruption and argued that their actions were driven by a determination to maintain integrity. They asserted that if their view on the charges against the respondent was reasonably possible, the court should not interfere with their decision. The appellants highlighted the seriousness of the charges and the need to maintain high standards of honesty and integrity in the banking sector.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, represented by the petitioner, argued that the disciplinary action was based on insufficient evidence and lacked a reasonable basis. They contended that the disciplinary authorities accepted the report without proper scrutiny and that the petitioner’s involvement in altering figures was not conclusively proven. The respondents emphasized that the court should not re-evaluate the evidence or question the adequacy of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court considered the evidence presented in the inquiry report and assessed whether the charges against the petitioner were proven. It was noted that the disciplinary authorities must establish allegations against a delinquent employee based on evidence that a reasonable person would find sufficient to uphold the gravity of the charge. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity in the banking sector and the need for disciplinary actions to be fair and unbiased. The judgment highlighted the limitations of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries, focusing on correcting legal or procedural errors that could lead to injustice. Ultimately, the court directed a reconsideration of the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the State Bank of Travancore, indicating a need for a fair and objective assessment of the evidence and charges against the petitioner.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
