Kerala HC: Writs Not for Questioning Sufficiency of Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings

The Kerala High Court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to re-evaluate the evidence presented in a domestic inquiry conducted by disciplinary authorities. The Court addressed a writ petition brought forth by a worker of the State Bank of Travancore who faced dismissal from service following a departmental inquiry into fraud allegations against the bank. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. H C Goel (1964), affirming that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction cannot be employed to assess the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence leading to a specific conclusion in disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner, a Deputy Manager at the Kozhikode Main Branch of the State Bank of Travancore, faced disciplinary proceedings due to serious lapses, irregularities, and malpractices in loan accounts under his supervision. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service (Ext. P7). Although his appeal led to a reduction in punishment to removal from service (Ext. P9), his review was ultimately dismissed (Ext. P11).

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the bank did not suffer any financial loss and argued that the punishment of dismissal or removal from service was disproportionate and unjustified. It was further asserted that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the charges against him.

In response, the respondents’ counsel argued that the standard of proof required in domestic inquiries is different from that of a court of law, and strict rules of evidence do not apply.

Upon analyzing the available evidence, the Court noted that the disciplinary authority, acting as the fact-finding body, thoroughly evaluated the evidence against the petitioner and concluded his involvement in defrauding the bank. It observed that the disciplinary authorities meticulously considered the charges, findings in the inquiry report, and all evidence before issuing the impugned orders against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that it cannot find fault with the respondents for accepting these findings.