Court didn’t Overstep Jurisdiction in Modifying Penalty Imposed by Disciplinary Authority- Delhi High Court

0
155

September 25, 2018

Disciplinary Proceedings- In this recent case, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in view of the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case held that the Court in modifying the penalty imposed on respondent by the Disciplinary authority did not overstep its jurisdiction and that the justification to exercise of such a power by the High Court, cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and would necessarily depend upon the facts of each case.

Case name: Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Bansal

In the present case, the Appellant Bank approached the Division Bench of Delhi High Court against order passed by the Single Judge, whereby the Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, modified the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the respondent by the appellant/Bank to that of compulsory retirement.

The Appellant Bank alleged that Single Judge had overstepped his power under judicial review by assuming the role of the Departmental Authorities which course of action was not permissible in law.

Bench’s Verdict

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order in view of the following observations made in the case:

    • In view of the material and evidence available on record, the Court was of the opinion that the case against the respondent was only of some procedural irregularities and at no stage was the respondent charged with any misconduct relating to financial irregularities or misappropriation.
    • The Court also took into account the fact that the respondent had rendered almost blemish less service of almost 29 years, wherein except one minor penalty, whereby his promotion had been withheld for one year, nothing untoward was ever found in his record.
    • In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that the Single Judge was justified in modifying the penalty imposed on the respondent by taking into consideration respondent’s 29 years of almost blemish less service.
    • The Court additionally opined that the justification to exercise of such a power by the High Court, cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and would necessarily depend upon the facts of each case.

 

 

The entire case can be accessed here