(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH) 1. The judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 in Special Civil Application No.3925 of 1998 dismissing the petition of the present appellant for quashing and setting-aside his order of dismissal by the respondents is under challenge in the present appeal.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Biren A.Vaishnav for the appellant has agreed to take up the matter for final hearing considering the fact that, only question of law is involved in the matter and, therefore, matter is heard on merits in detail. It is submitted by Mr.Vaishnav, learned advocate for the appellant that order of termination from service is harsh and it was with malice and without giving reasonable opportunity, and the same was without jurisdiction because the Assistant General Manager of the Bank is not the appointing authority and, therefore, not competent to pass the order of termination of the appellant.
3. The factual details are not at dispute that the appellant was serving as an Agricultural Officer with the respondent – Bank and because of financial irregularities committed by him, he was terminated after departmental inquiry. We have perused the record wherein Mr.Vaishnav could not point out any irregularity or illegality so far as the proceedings before the respondent – Bank are concerned, though it is alleged that reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant to defend the charges against him. However, the record shows that appellant has taken active part in the departmental inquiry and he has also preferred an appeal before the competent authority of respondent No.2 against the order of departmental inquiry and there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant was not given reasonable opportunity during disciplinary proceeding and before passing an order of termination of his service. It is to be recollected that entire departmental inquiry was initiated merely because of financial irregularities by the appellant and respondent being Bank, the record of financial irregularities are very well in order, which specifically confirms that the appellant was involved in financial irregularities, which resulted into huge financial loss to the respondent – Bank. Therefore, on merits of the disciplinary inquiry, when sufficient and reasonable opportunity was offered to the appellant and when the appellant has also challenged the order before the appellate authority within the respondents, it cannot be said that there is a case in favour of the appellant to exonerate him from such allegations in the departmental inquiry, and in view of that, once it is proved that the appellant was involved in financial irregularities and has committed huge financial loss to the Bank, there is no option for the respondent – Bank, but to punish him. For the same reasons, it cannot be said that punishment of termination is harsh and hence appellant does not deserve any lenient punishment.
4. So far as other allegations regarding jurisdiction and powers of the punishing authority is concerned, it is contended by the appellant that he was appointed by the Deputy General Manager and, therefore, order of punishment by Assistant General Manager is without jurisdiction and requires to be set- aside. However, the settled legal position is otherwise. Factually, in the present case, as observed in the impugned order, Asst.General Manager is the regional authority exercising powers as disciplinary authority in accordance with the authority confirmed upon him by the Board of Directors as per Dena Bank Officers Employee’s (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which are framed in exercise of powers under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It is clear that power has been delegated to the concerned authorities by the highest executive body i.e. Board of Directors and, therefore, Dy.General Manager and Asst.General Manager have exercised the powers, which have been delegated/confirmed upon them by the highest executive authority.
5. In light of the above factual details, if we peruse the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & Anr. Vs.Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC 137, it becomes clear that the legal position is well settled that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision, but is confined to the decision making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and re-apprise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer and examine the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of appeal and reach its own conclusion while dealing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If we peruse another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs.Sunil reported in AIR 2006 SC 1923, it is also well settled that in such cases even invalid act of issuing some order can be subsequently ratified by the competent authority having power to pass order of dismissal and said ratification relates back to date of original order and validates it. In such reported case, the Apex Court has even allowed to ratify the order of dismissal by competent authority. It was issued by some other officer. Whereas, in the present case, such authority was already given by the Board of Directors to Assistant General Manager so far as inquiry and order of dismissal are concerned and, therefore, appellant has no case in his favour either on facts or on law point. Hence, there is no merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (S.G.SHAH, J.) (binoy)