A bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi at the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of a bank employee for embezzlement, emphasizing that courts cannot reassess evidence in disciplinary cases. The judgment reinforced that judicial intervention is only permissible if findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a bank employee, was dismissed on 07.01.2003 after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of embezzling ₹500 from a customer’s account. He challenged the dismissal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, which rejected his claim in an Award dated 01.04.2019. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
Read also:- Bombay HC Prioritizes Child’s Well-Being, Allows Mother to Keep Custody Over Father’s Islamic Law Claim
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges.
- The Enquiry Officer’s report lacked sufficient evidence.
- The Labour Court failed to evaluate whether the charges were proven beyond doubt.
Respondent’s Stand
- The departmental inquiry was fair, and misconduct was proven.
- The petitioner was given a proper opportunity to defend himself.
- The Tribunal rightly rejected the claim, as the dismissal was justified.
Read also:- Bombay HC Prioritizes Child’s Well-Being, Allows Mother to Keep Custody Over Father’s Islamic Law Claim
Court’s Observations & Ruling
1. Courts Cannot Reassess Evidence
The High Court held that under Article 226, it cannot act as an appellate authority to re-examine evidence. Judicial review is limited to checking:
"Whether the enquiry was conducted fairly, followed proper procedure, and whether findings were based on some evidence. Sufficiency of evidence cannot be questioned."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh, which stated:
"Courts will not reassess evidence in departmental enquiries. Interference is only allowed if findings are perverse or based on no evidence."
2. Embezzlement is Serious, Refund Doesn’t Absolve Misconduct
The petitioner argued that since the ₹500 was later refunded, dismissal was excessive. However, the Court rejected this, stating:
"Embezzlement in a bank is a grave charge. Returning the money does not erase the misconduct."
Read also:- ECI to Supreme Court: Aadhaar, Voter ID, Ration Card Not Valid for Electoral Roll Inclusion in Bihar SIR
3. Punishment Not Disproportionate
The Court referred to Union of India vs. Const. Sunil Kumar, where the Supreme Court ruled:
"Judicial review of punishment is allowed only if it is shockingly disproportionate. Otherwise, disciplinary authorities have the final say."
Since the charge was proven, the dismissal was upheld as justified.
Case Name: Amrik Dass Bhatti vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh & Another
Case No.: CWP-15140-2019
Petitioner’s Counsel: Amarjit Singh, Advocate
Respondent’s Counsel: Saurav Verma, Advocate with Preeti Grover, Advocate