The Hindu : Don't interfere with punishments after probe, SC tells HCs

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Feb 16, 2003

National

National

Don't interfere with punishments after probe, SC tells HCs

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI Feb. 15. The Supreme Court has held that High Courts should not interfere with punishment awarded to a delinquent official after proper enquiry unless such a decision was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court.

A Bench comprising Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Justice Arijit Pasayat observed that courts should take into consideration the basic principles, viz., whether the order was contrary to law or relevant factors were not considered or irrelevant factors were considered or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken.

It said that interference with punishments by courts could not be a routine matter. "The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision."

In the case at hand, the Allahabad High Court had quashed the order of dismissal from service a United Commercial Bank official, though it found that the charges against him were established.

Disposing of an appeal filed by the UCO Bank, the Bench pointed out that the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate.

The Bench observed that a bank officer was required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity as "he deals with money of the depositors and the customers.

Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer".

The Bench further said: "The very discipline of an organisation, more particularly a bank, is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court". The Bench remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the case and it should only consider the punishment aspect, treating all other matters to be closed.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National