Holding

Judicial review is confined to the decision‑making process; absent procedural irregularities or malafide intent, the disciplinary findings and compulsory retirement stand.

Summary

The respondent, a Junior Management Officer of Bank of India, was found guilty of submitting inflated and false travel, lodging, boarding and halting allowance bills while on deputation and was compulsorily retired under the Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. He challenged the retirement through multiple writ petitions; a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions, but a Division Bench reversed that decision and granted relief. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there were no procedural irregularities, no violation of natural justice, and that the Division Bench improperly re‑appreciated the evidence and acted as an appellate authority. The Supreme Court held that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision‑making process, not the merits, and found no breach of procedure or malafide intent. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench order, restored the Single Judge’s order, and upheld the compulsory retirement.

Issues considered

Whether judicial review under Article 226 can interfere with the findings of a departmental disciplinary inquiry.
Whether there were any procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice or malafide intent in the disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the High Court Division Bench could re‑appreciate the evidence and assume the role of an appellate authority.
Whether the charges under Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 24 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 justify compulsory retirement.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementjudicial reviewnatural justicemalafideBank of India regulationsArticle 226misconductevidence re‑appreciation

Judgment

-·
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A
ll.
T.JOGRAM

AUGUST 2, 2007

.,
[H.K. SEMA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Service law:

Bank of India Officer, Employees (Conduct) Regulations, I976:
c
Regulations 3 and 24-Misconduct--Compulsory retirement-Officer
of the Bank found guilty of submitting inflated and false bills claiming
travelling, boarding and lodging expenses and halting al/owance-
Compulsorily retired from service-Held, Single Judge of High Court was
right in holding that order of compulsory retirement was passed based on D
material available on record and the charges leveled were proved against
-{ the delinquent.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226-Judicial review of orders passed in disciplinary ·
proceedings-Judgment of Single Judge upholding the order passed by
E
disciplinary authority and appellate authority reversed by Division Bench of
High Court in appeal-Propriety of-Held: Judicial review is not against the
decision but the decision making process-On facts, there is no al~egation
of procedural irregularities/illegality nor is there any allegation of violation
ofprinciples of natural justice-Order of Division Bench of High Court being F
unsustainable In law is set aside and that of Single Judge is restored-
Principles of Natural ,Justice.

The respondent, a Junior Management OfTacer Scale-I in the appellant
Bank, was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement after a disciplinary
inquiry into the charges aga~nst him that while on deputation he submitted G
inflated and false bills claiming travelling expenses, lodging and boarding
charges antt hlting allowance. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed
by Single Judge of the High Court by a reasoned judgment. However, the
Division Bench, in the intra-court appeal, having allowed the writ petition of
763 H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A the Jelinquent officer, the Bank filed the instant appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that there was no allegation of
procedural irregularities or illegality or violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry which required the Division Bench of tbe
High Court to upset the well reasoned order of the Single Judge by way of
B judicial review; and that the Division Bench was wrong, in re-appreciating
the entire evidence and could not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer and assume the role of the appellate authority.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

c HELD:l.1. By now it is a well-settled principle of law that judicial review
is not against the decision; it is against the decision making process. In the
instant case, there are no allegations of procedural irregularities/illegality
nor is there any violation of principles of natural justice. The allegation of
malafide was not substantiated. It is a well settled law that the allegation of
D malafide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. 1t should be based on
factual matrix. [Para 15) (770-B, CJ ·

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Regional
Manager, U.P.SRTC v. Hoti Lal, (2003) 3 S<:;C 605, relied on.

E Union Bank of India v. Vish";a Mohan, [1998) 4 SCC 310, Apparel
Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, [1999) 1 SCC 759, Un!on of India
v. K.G. Soni, (2006) 6 SCC 794, Sterling Computers Ltd. v. Mis M & N
Publications Ltd, [1993) 1 SCC 445, State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K.
Sharma, [1~96) 3 SCC 364, DelfJi Development Authority v. VEE Electricals
Engg.(P) Ltd, (2004) 11 SCC 213 and Chairman and Managing Director,
F Unite,dCommercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003) 4 SCC 364, cited.
>-- •
1.2. As regards the plea ofviolation of principles of naturai justice on
the ground that the documents required by the respondent were not supplied
to the respondent, from the averment it is seen that the documents, which
G were sought to be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted
by the respondent himself before the authority. In these circumstanct;s, no
prejudice whatsoever was caused to the respondent. [Para 15) [770-C, DJ

1.3. The charge against the respondent was violation of Regulation 3(1)
of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The
H Regulation require that every officer employee shall at all times take all
BANK OF INDIA v. T. JOGRAM [H.K. SEMA, J.] 765

possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge A
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. In this view of the matter, the impugned
order of the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in law and is
accordingly set-aside, and that of the Single Judge is restored.
(Paras 16 and 17) (770-E, F] B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICATION: Civil Appeal No. 298 of2005 .

..._ From the Judgment & Order 03.09.2004 of the High Court of Judicature
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 205 of 2002.

WITH
c
C.A. No. 640 of2005.

Neha Sharma, Nina Gupta, Akanksha and Bina Gupta for the Appellants.

A.T. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Respondent .
D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.K.SEMA, J. (1) This appeal preferred by Bank of India is directed
against the judgml!:tt and order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Division Bench E
of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.205 of
2002, upsetting the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2) We have heard Ms.Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants
as well as Mr. A.T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

-<.
F
(3) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the appellant-bank sometime
in the year 1982. He was, thereafter, promoted as Junior Management Officer
Scale-I in 1993 and was posted to Tamilnadu. After two years he was transferred
to Hyderabad. While he was working as an officer at Secunderabad Branch G
during the period from 6.l.1996 to 30.3.1998, he was on deputation to
Visakhapatnam from 22.02.1997 to 25.02.1997 for mobilization of shares. He
~I.__, submitted bills claiming travel expenses, lodging and boarding charges and
halting allowance for the aforesaid period. It was found that the amount
claimed by the respondent was inflated. A charge memo was issued to him H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A on 26.03.1999. The charges levelled against him are:-
"Article I

"You were on deputation to Visakhapatnam Branch from 22.2.1997 to
25.2.1997 for which you submitted the TA bill on 27th February, 1997
B claiming the fabricated travelling expenses, which are far in excess of
the normal conveyance. You are claimed and submitted a lodging bill
of Lodge Brindavan for Rs.500/- for two days whereas the room rent
paid by you in the said lodge Brindavan for 2 days was Rs.104/-. Thus
you submitted a false bill. You had also arranged to incorporate
boarding charges of Rs.300/- in the bill issued by Lodge Brindavan
c although no boarding facilities are available in the said lodge. You
have also claimed halting allowance of Rs.350/- which is in excess of
the entitlement.
Your aforesaid acts of claiming false and fabricated travelling.
expenses, claiming false lodging charges and also claiming excess
D halting allowance, if proved, shall amount to misconduct in terms of
Regulation 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) )·
Regulations, 1976 in as much as you alleged to have committed breach
of Regulation 3( 1) of the said Regulations, which reads as under:
Regulation 3 (I)
E
Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible steps to
ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence arid do nothing
which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
F CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER >--

'IRNANDRUM REGION

AND

G .DISCIPLINARY AU1HORI1Y"

(4) The respondent submitted his explanation to the charge, denying
the charges. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Chief Regional Manager, ),,_
MICR Centre Hyd~rabad, as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted
expeditiously. The Enquiry Officer after examining the witnesses and exhibited
H documents from both sides submitted his findings on 13.01.2000 holding the
(

BANK OF INDIA v. T. JOGRAM [H.K. SEMA, J.) 767

respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. A copy of the enquiry A
report was also furnished t~ the respondent and after examining the written
reply by the respondent; the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of
the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement
from service w.e.f. 14.7.2001. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Writ Petition
No.14786 of2001 questioning the impugned order of compulsory retirement. B
The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 20.7.2001
directing the respondent to exhaust his alternative statutory remedy by filing
an appeal under Regul~tion 17 of Bank of India Employees (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1976. By an order dated 30.8.200 I, the Appellate Authority
dismissed the appeal of the respondent and confirmed· the order of the
Disciplinary Authority. C
(5) Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred another Writ Petition
No.18372 of 2001 questioning the penalty of compulsory retirement. The
learned Single Judge after hearing counsel on both sides and perusing the
record did not find any valid ground to interfere· with the penalty of compulsory
retirement and dismissed the Writ Petition by an order dated 27.9.2001. D
(6) We may, at this stage quote the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge held:

"As long as the order passed is not in violation of rules/regulations/
statutory provisions, the enquiry cannot be set aside in a casual E
manner. The Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is open only on grounds ofmalafide, arbitrariness and perversity.
The Writ Petitioner except stating that he is the founder of SCs, STs
and OBCs Association protecting the interest of downtrodden and
that the Respondent Bank managenfent is biased against him, has
failed to place any relevant material to substantiate his case. The F
.... administrative and disciplinary action of the respondent bank cannot
be the subject matter of review, once they followed the due process
of law. In the present case, order of compulsory retirement has been
passed based on the material available on record and on the charges
levelled and proved against the petitioner and the order impugned has G
been passed in the public interest, retiring him compulsorily. The
order impugned is subjective satisfaction of the respondent-Bank
,A. based on the report made available on record. The petitioner is· an
officer of the respondent-Bank and it goes without saying that the
bank business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A needs to be preserved by very bank employee and in particular·:the
bank officer. If ~his is not observed, the confidence of the public/
depositors would be impaired."

(7) We entirely agree with the reasons recorded by the learned Single
Judge. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the
B well-settled principles of law enunciated by this Court in a Catena of decisions.

(8) We dismay to notice that the Division Bench of the High Court
upset the well reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge by re- +
appreciating the evidence.

C (9) The Division Bench of the High Court also noticed that the High
Court under Article 226 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the
departmental enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer as
a matter of course. The High Court also recorded that the Court cannot sit
in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the Appellate Authority.
D (10) Having said that, the High Court summersaulted and re-appreciated
the entire evidence and then upset the well reasoning recorded by the learned tc
Single Judge.

(I I) Ms.Neha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank
E would contend that there is no allegation of procedural irregularities or illegality
or violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, which would
require the Division Bench of the High Court to upset the weil reasoning
recorded by the learned Single Judge by way of judicial review. She would
further contend that the High Court was wrong in re-appreciating the entire
evidence and that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings
F recorded by the Enquiry Officer and assume the role of the Appellate Authority.
There is sufficient force in this contention. In support of her contention she
referred to various decisions of this Court; Union Bank of India v. Vishwa
Mohan, [I 998] 4 SCC 3 I 0, Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra,
[1999] I SCC 759, Union of India v. K.G. Soni, [2006] 6 SCC 7:94, Sterling
G Computers Ltd. v. Mis M & N Publications Ltd., [1993] I SCC 445, State Bank
of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, [1996] 3 SCC 364, Delhi Development
Authority v. UEE Electricals Engg.(P) Ltd., [2004] I I SCC 213, Chairman
and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, [2003] 4 )-...._
SCC364.

H (12) Avoiding multiplicity we may note a few decisions of this Court.
BANK OF INDIA v. T. JOGRAM [H.K. SEMA, J.) 769
(13) In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995] 6 SCC 749, a three A
Judge Bench of this Court held in paragraph 12 as under:-

"Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily B
correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether
the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority C
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry ha3 jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence
and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority D
is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held that the proceedings against the E
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/
Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould F
the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case."

{14) In the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, v. Hoti Lal, [2003] 3
SCC 605, this Court observed at p.614 sec as under:-

"If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honestY and G 1

integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper
to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be
dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or
is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the
highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is a must and
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the
Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set
aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding the
order of dismissal."

(15) By now it is well-settled principle of law that judicial review is not
B against the decision. It is against the decision making process. In the instant
case, there are no allegations of procedural irregularities/illegality and also
there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for
the respondent tried to sustain the allegation of malafide. He tried to assert +
that the respondent filed a case against the Chief Manager of Secunderabad
C Branch in 1996 and the enquiry initiated against the respondent is the fall out
of malafide. We are unable to accept the bald allegations. The allegation of
malafide was not substantiated. It is well settled law that the allegation of ~-

malafide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. It should be based on
factual matrix. Counsel also tried to assert the violation of principles of natural
justice on the ground that the documents required by the respondent were not
D supplied to him. From the averment it is seen that the documents, which were
sought to be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted by the
respondent himself before the authority. In these circumstances, no prejudice
whatsoever was· caused to the respondent.

(16) As already noticed the charge of the respondent was violation of
E Regulation 3(1) of Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations,
1976. The Regulation require that every officer employee shall at all times take
all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
F (17) In the view that we have taken the impugned order of the Division
Bench of the High Court is unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set-aside.
The Ordt>r of the learned Single Judge is r~stored. The Writ Petition filed by
the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

G (18) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2005

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No298 of2005, Civil Appeal
No.640 of 2005 is dismissed.

RP. Appeals dismissed.
H