NON­REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).      1457    OF    2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13953 of 2021)
REGIONAL MANAGER, 
UCO BANK AND ANOTHER …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 21 st
  January, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court  of Allahabad affirming   the order  of the learned Single  Judge
dated 19 th
 October, 2019 pursuant to which the inquiry proceedings
and   consequential   punishment   inflicted   upon   the   respondent
delinquent were quashed and set aside.
1

3. The   respondent   delinquent   was   serving   as   an   Assistant
Manager,   Sewla   Branch   on   10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999   when   the
incident of theft was reported. The respondent delinquent being one
of   the   joint   custodian   of   cash  was   responsible   for   safety  of   keys  of
cash/strong   room   and   failed   to   take   all   precautionary   steps   as
being   indicated   in   the   guidelines   of   the   Bank   and   because   of   the
alleged   negligence   on   the   part   of   the   respondent   delinquent   in
handling  the keys in inappropriate manner  resulted into theft/loss
of   cash   from   the   cash   safe.     For   such   delinquency   committed   by
him   in   discharge   of   his   official   duties,   he   was   placed   under
suspension   in   exercise   of   power   conferred   under   Regulation   12   of
the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations
1976(hereinafter being referred to as the “Regulations 1976”) by an
Order dated 29 th
 November, 1999.
4. Later,   chargesheet   dated   7 th
  December,   1999   along   with   four
article   of   charges   was   served   and   by   a   corrigendum   dated   13 th
March,  2000,   additional   charge  no.5   was  served  upon  him.   It   may
be appropriate to  quote  the  extract of  articles  of charges,  dated  7 th
2

December,   1999   along   with   additional   charge   no.5   by   a
corrigendum dated 13 th
 March, 2000 as under:­
1. Being   one   of   the   joint   custodians   of   cash,   Mr.   K.K.   Bhardwaj   was
responsible   for   safety   of   keys   of   cash/strong   room,   he   did   not   keep
the eyes in his person as per  guidelines of the  Bank,  instead left  the
keys in the branch premises over­night in an almirah in contravention
to the guidelines for safety of keys of cash safe/strong room.   He was
most negligent and his handling the keys in a perfunctionary manner
resulted into theft/loss of cash of Rs. 12.00 lacs from the cash safe.
2. Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, being one of the joint custodians of cash, did not
arrange to remit  the  surplus cash on  10.11.1999  to Currency  Chest,
Belanganj   Branch,   Agra   even   though   there   was   huge   cash   balance
much more than the average, anticipated daily requirement.  Thus, he
did not take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the
Bank   and   did   not   discharge   his   duties   with   utmost   devotion   and
diligence   which   is   violative   of   Regulation   3(1)   of   UCO   Bank   Officer
Employees(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
3. Before leaving the branch on 10.11.1999 after close of cash, Mr. K.K.
Bhardwaj   did   not   check   about   the   closure   of   one   rear   gate   between
the main hall and passage towards toilet of Sewla Branch, Agra which
was left unlocked/opened on 10.11.99.  Thus, he did not take take all
possible   steps   to   ensure   and   protect   the   interest   of   the   Bank   and
failed   to   discharge   his   duties   with   utmost   devotion   and   diligence
which is violative of Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officers Employees
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj did not maintain the key register for noting the transfer
of   keys   from   one   holder   to   another.     He   himself   along   with   Chief
Cashier   had   not   signed   the   key   register   on   taking   over   charge   of   the
keys   of   cash   safe/strong   room   of   the   branch.     Thus,   he   failed   to
discharge   his   duties   with   devotion   and   diligence   which   is  violative   of
Regulation   3(1)   of   UCO   Bank   Officer   Employees   (Conduct)
Regulations, 1976 as amended.
5. That Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj was in hand and glove with some person with
an ulterior motive in perpetration of theft of cash at Sewla Branch  for
Rs.12.00   lacs   on   10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999.     Thus   he   failed   to
3

discharge   his   duties   with   utmost   integrity   and   honesty,   which   is
violative   of   Regulation­3   of   UCO   BANK   Officers   employees   (Conduct)
Regulation, 1976 as amended.”
 
5. The inquiry officer conducted departmental inquiry in terms of
the   procedure   prescribed   under   the   scheme   of   Regulations,   1976
and   after   affording   opportunity   of   hearing   and   due   compliance   of
principles of natural justice, held charge nos. 1,3 and 4 proved vide
report   dated   31 st
  July,   2001.     However,   charge   nos.   2   and   5   were
not held proved.
6. It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   the   date   on   which   the   theft   was
committed,   i.e.   10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999,   Mr.   Vinod   Kumar
Khanna   was   the   Manager   of   Sewla,   Agra   Branch.     During   that
period, the present respondent was Assistant Manager and one Mr.
K.L.   Khandelwal   was   the   Assistant   Manager(Cash).     Apart   from
them, four other clerks were posted at Sewla Branch and Mr. Vinod
Kumar Khanna was not on duty on the day when the incident had
taken place.   The signatures of custodian ­ the present respondent
delinquent   and   Mr.   K.L.   Khandewal(Assistant   Manager(Cash)   were
confirmed   and   in   support   thereof,   document   ME­2/1   to   ME­2/5
were placed on record.  
4

7. The statement of fact was duly recorded by the Inquiry Officer
in his report that the respondent delinquent was custodian of keys
on   the   day,   i.e.,   10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999   when   the   theft   was
committed   and   he   was   one   of   the   joint   custodian   of   cash   and
responsible   for   safety   of   keys/cash.     After   due   appreciation   of
documentary   evidence   placed   on   record,   the   Inquiry   Officer   found
charge   nos.   1,   3   and   4   proved   against   the   respondent   delinquent.
After   due  appreciation  of   the   documentary   evidence  on   record,   the
extract   of   the   findings   which   has   been   recorded,   after   detailed
scrutiny of facts, by the Inquiry Officer in his report for arriving to a
conclusion   in   holding   charge   nos.   1,   3   and   4   proved   against   the
respondent delinquent are referred to hereunder:­
Charge No. 1
Findings of the Inquiry Officer :­ 
I   have   fully   examined   the   contentions   of   P.O.&   DR/C.S.0.   and   my   findings   in   this
regard are as under:­ 
Considering all the facts and material placed before me during the inquiry proceedings
by the concerned parties, I concur with the arguments advanced and facts established
by the Presenting Officer, who has established the facts relating to charge No. 1 on the
basis of ME­2/ 1 to 5, ME­ 6/1 & 2, ME­10,, ME­10/1&2, ME­11, ME­3, ME­13, ME­
12, ME­14, ME­15, ME­20, ME­27, DE­30, DE­31/1&2, DE­32, ME­1/5, ME­23, ME­
24, DE­2/1to15. 
5

I, therefore, hold that charge No. 1 stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj, C.S.O. 
Charge No. 3  
Findings of the Inquiry Officer :­ 
I have fully examined the contentions of P.O. and DR/CSO and my findings in
this regard are as under:­ 
Considering   all   the   facts   and   material   placed   before   me   during   the   inquiry
proceedings  by  the concerned parties,  I  concur  with arguments  advanced  and
facts   established   by   the   Presenting   Officer,   who   has   established   the   facts
relating to charge No. 3 on the basis of documentary evidence, namely, ME­3,
ME­12,   ME­13,   ME­14,   ME­15,   ME­16,   ME­17   &   ME­18.   As   per   ME­14   the
C.S.O. had left the branch at about 4.45 p.m. on 10.11.99, and as per ME­12
and ME­13 the Manager, Mr. V.K. Khanna had left the branch on 10.11.99 at
about   2.00   p.m.   by   informing   to   the   Asstt.   Manager,   Mr.   K.K.   Bhardwaj.   It   is
the bounden duty of the Manager to ensure the security of the branch and in
absence of the Manager it automatically passes on to the Asstt. Manager, who
is   second­in­command   in   the   branch.   As   such,   the   asstt.   Manager   Mr.   K.K.
Bhardwaj   while   leaving   the   Sewla   branch   on   10.11.1999,   in   absence   of   the
Manager, must have fully ensured about the safety and security of the branch
in view of alarming/huge cash accumulation (Rs. 27,84,002.17) in the branch
as at the close of business on 10.11.99. Laxity in security is also evident from
ME­15. So, it is well substantiated by P.O. that the Asstt. Manager was lacking
in his duty while leaving the branch on 10.11.99 in absence of the Manager, in
the matter of security and safety of the branch. 
I,  therefore,  hold   that   charge   No.  3  stands   proved  against   Mr.  K.K.   Bhardwaj,
C.S.O. 
Charge No. 4
Findings of the Inquiry Officer:
I   have   fully   examined   the   contentions   of   P.O.   &   DR/CSO   and   my   findings   in
this regard are as under:­ 
Considering   all   the   facts   and   material   placed   before   me   during   the   inquiry
proceedings   by   the   concerned   parties,   I   concur   with   the   arguments   advanced
6

and facts established by the Presenting Officer, who has established from ME­
6/1&2   that   "A   record   of   custody   of   all   important   keys   should   be   carried   in   a
key   Register.   All   changes   in   the   custody   of   keys   should   be   promptly   made
thereinunder the signatures of the custodians." 
ME­8 & ME­22/ 1&2 confirm the incomplete records of the postings in the Key
Register's relating to Asstt. Manager and Asstt. Manager (Cash) since 1.8.1995
and 2.7.1994 respectively. 
It   is   established   from   above   records   that   the   Asstt.   Manager   and   the   Asstt.
Manager  (Cash) who  were the joint  custodians  at  Sewla  Agra  branch, had not
signed   the   respective   key   registers   on   taking   over   charge   of   the   keys   of   Cash
Safe/Strong   Room   of   the   branch   and   did   not   maintain   the   Key   Registers
uptodate. 
I, therefore, hold that Charge No. 4, stands proved against Mr. K.K. Bhardwaj,
C.S.O.” 
8. The   disciplinary   authority,   after   affording   opportunity   of
hearing   to   the   respondent   delinquent,   concurred   with   the   findings
of   the   Inquiry   Officer   and   after   due   compliance   of   principles   of
natural   justice,   inflicted   the   penalty   of   dismissal   from   service   vide
Order   dated   31 st
  December,   2001   with   disqualification   for   future
employment.
9. The   order   of   the   disciplinary   authority   came   to   be   challenged
by   the   respondent   in   the   departmental   appeal   before   the   appellate
authority.     The   appellate   authority,   after   revisiting   the   record   of
inquiry,   found   justification   in   the   submissions   made   by   the
respondent delinquent with regard to charge no. 3 but so far as the
7

finding   in   reference   to   charge   nos.   1   and   4   is   concerned,   the
appellate   authority   concurred   with   the   finding   recorded   by   the
inquiry   officer   and   confirmed   by   the   disciplinary   authority   in
exercise of power under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976 and
modified   the   punishment   by   its   Order   dated   23 rd
  December,   2002,
the extract of which is as under:­
“I, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me as Appellate Authority, and in terms of
Regulation   17   of   UCO   Bank   Officer   Employees   (Discipline   and   Appeal)   Regulations,
1976, as amended, pass the following Order : 
Charge   No.
1  Proved  Shri   K.K.   Bhardwaj   (PFM   No.   23213)   shall   be
compulsorily retired from Bank's service. 
Charge   No.
2 Not
Proved  Exonerated 
Charge   No.
3 Not
Proved  Exonerated 
Charge   No.
4 Proved  The   Basic   Pay   of   Shri   Bhardwaj   be   reduced   by
two  stages  in  the  time  scale   of  pay   for  a   period
of   4   (four)   years.   It   is   further   directed   that   he
will earn increments of pay during the period of
reduction   and   that   on   expiry   of   this   period   the
reduction   will   have   the   effect   of   postponing   his
future increments. 
Charge   No.
5 Not
Proved  Exonerated
8

The   above   punishments   shall   run   concurrently,   However,   since   no   moral
turpitude   is   being   found   against   Shri   Bhardwaj,   he   will   be   paid   with   all
terminal benefits payable to him.” 
10. The   order   passed   by   the   appellate   authority   came   to   be
challenged by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the record of inquiry,
arrived   to   the   conclusion   that   Mr.   Vinod   Kumar   Khanna   was   the
Branch   Manager   on   the  date   when   the   incident   had  occurred,   i.e.,
10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999   and   the   joint   responsibility   was   of   the
Branch   Manager   and   the   Assistant   Manager(Cash).     Since   the
present respondent delinquent was the Assistant Manager, he could
not   be   held   to   be   responsible   for   lapses   and   set   aside   the   order   of
punishment   inflicted   upon   the   respondent   delinquent   under   its
Order dated 19 th
 October 2019.
11. On   Letters   Patent   Appeal   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the
present   appellant,   the   Division   Bench   under   the   impugned
judgment   has   not   taken   care   to   examine   the   report   of   inquiry   and
has   just   reproduced   the   findings   recorded   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   under   the   order   impugned   and   dismissed   the   appeal   by   an
9

Order   dated   21 st
  January,   2021   which   is   the   subject   matter   of
challenge before us.
12. For   completion   of   facts,   it   may   be   relevant   to   note   that   the
factual   error   was   committed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the
Division   Bench   in   passing   the   impugned   judgment   that   Mr.   Vinod
Kumar   Khanna,   who   was   the   Manager   of   Sewla,   Agra   Branch   at
that   time,   was   also   served   with   the   charge­sheet   and   he   too   faced
departmental   inquiry   but   the   allegation   against   him   was   that
despite   being   fully   aware   that   the   respondent   delinquent   was   the
custodian of cash(keeping the keys of the cash safe/strong room in
an   almirah   in   the   stationery   room   overnight)   and   not   keeping   the
same  in  his  personal   custody  as  per  rules  of  the  Bank,  he  did  not
take appropriate steps against the staff who was reportedly keeping
overnight safety of the keys of the chest in the Branch itself which
was a gross negligence which he had committed in discharge of his
duties   as   a   Manager   of   the   Branch   and   for   his   supervisory
negligence,   after   charge­sheet   dated   17 th
  December,   1999   came   to
be   served,   he   too   was   held   guilty   for   his   supervisory   negligence
10

which   he   had   committed   in   discharge   of   his   duties   and   was
punished by an Order dated 28 th
 February, 2002.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that for  the gross
misconduct   which   the   respondent   had   committed   in   discharge   of
his   duties,   the   inquiry   was   conducted   in   accordance   with   the
procedure prescribed under the Regulations 1976 and it was never
the   case   of   the   respondent   either   before   the   departmental
authorities  or   before  the  High  Court  that  the  inquiry  has  not   been
conducted   in   accordance   with   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the
scheme   of   Regulations,   1976   or   the   record   which   was   relevant   to
the  charge,  and demanded by  him, was not  made  available to  him
and   what   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   him   on   account   of   non­
availability   of   record   or   the   orders   passed   by   the
disciplinary/appellate   authority   are   in   violation   of   principles   of
natural justice while upholding the findings of the inquiry officer in
reference   to   charge   nos.   1   and   4   and   consequential   punishment
inflicted upon him.
14. At   the   same   time,   learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   has   proceeded   on   the
11

premise that it was the Manager and Assistant Manager(Cash) who
were responsible officers and because of their negligence, theft has
been committed on 10 th
/11 th
  November, 1999 from the cash safe of
the   Branch   which   appears   to   be   factually   incorrect.     It   was   the
respondent delinquent who was the custodian and in­charge of keys
at   the   relevant   point   of   time   along   with   Assistant   Manager(Cash)
and   the   finding   was   recorded   by   the   Inquiry   Officer   supported   by
the documentary evidence on record and this was never questioned
by the respondent delinquent at any  later  stage even when he was
served   with   the   inquiry   report   or   to   the   disciplinary   or   appellate
authority while assailing the finding recorded by the inquiry officer
in his report.  This is the manifest error which the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   has   committed   in   interfering   with   the   domestic
inquiry   conducted   against   the   respondent   delinquent   in   which
charge   nos.   1   and   4   were   finally   held   proved   against   him.     In   the
given   circumstances,   the   interference   made   by   the   High   Court   in
the   impugned   judgment   is   not   sustainable   and   deserves   to   be
interfered with by this Court.
12

15. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent,   on   the   other
hand, submits that respondent was the Assistant Manager and the
responsibility  was  of   the  Manager  of  the   Branch  and   the  Assistant
Manager(Cash)   and   submits   that   the   finding   recorded   by   the
inquiry officer in his report is perverse and not sustainable.
16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   plea   was   raised   by
him   against   the   inquiry   officer   being   biased   but   no   one   has   paid
heed   to   his   request   and   further   submits   that   the   documents
demanded by him were not made available despite request and the
orders   passed   by   the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   being   non­
speaking and cryptic in nature are otherwise not sustainable in law.
17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with their assistance.
18. The   power   of   judicial   review   in   the   matters   of   disciplinary
inquiries,   exercised   by   the   departmental/appellate   authorities
discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136
of   the   Constitution   of   India   is   well   circumscribed   by   limits   of
correcting   errors   of   law   or   procedural   errors   leading   to   manifest
injustice   or   violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice   and   it   is   not
13

akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority
which has earlier been examined by this Court in   B.C. Chaturvedi
Vs.   Union   of   India   and   Others 1
;   Himachal   Pradesh   State
Electricity Board Limited   Vs.   Mahesh Dahiya 2
  and recently by a
three­Judge Bench of this Court(of which one of us is a member) in
Deputy   General   Manager(Appellate   Authority)   and   Others   Vs.
Ajay Kumar Srivastava 3
 wherein this Court has held as under:­
“24.   It   is   thus   settled   that   the   power   of   judicial   review,   of   the
constitutional   courts,   is   an   evaluation   of   the   decision­making
process   and   not   the   merits   of   the   decision   itself.   It   is   to   ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
court/tribunal   may   interfere   in   the   proceedings   held   against   the
delinquent   if   it   is,   in   any   manner,   inconsistent   with   the   rules   of
natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry 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
or   where   the   conclusions   upon   consideration   of   the   evidence
reached   by   the   disciplinary   authority   are   perverse   or   suffer   from
patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial
review   cannot   be   extended   to   the   examination   of   correctness   or
reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25.   When   the   disciplinary   enquiry   is   conducted   for   the   alleged
misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and
determine:
( i ) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
( ii ) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
1   1995(6) SCC 749
2   2017(1) SCC 768
3   2021(2) SCC 612
14

( iii )   whether   the   findings   or   conclusions   are   based   on   some
evidence   and   authority   has   power   and   jurisdiction   to   reach
finding of fact or conclusion.
26.   It   is   well   settled   that   where   the   enquiry   officer   is   not   the
disciplinary   authority,   on   receiving   the   report   of   enquiry,   the
disciplinary   authority   may   or   may   not   agree   with   the   findings
recorded   by   the   former,   in   case   of   disagreement,   the   disciplinary
authority   has   to   record   the   reasons   for   disagreement   and   after
affording   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   delinquent   may   record
his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for
such   exercise   or   else   to   remit   the   case   to   the   enquiry   officer   for
further enquiry.
27.   It   is   true   that   strict   rules   of   evidence   are   not   applicable   to
departmental  enquiry  proceedings.  However,  the  only   requirement
of   law   is   that   the   allegation   against   the   delinquent   must   be
established   by   such   evidence   acting   upon   which   a   reasonable
person   acting   reasonably   and   with   objectivity   may   arrive   at   a
finding  upholding  the gravity  of the  charge  against  the  delinquent
employee.   It   is   true   that   mere   conjecture   or   surmises   cannot
sustain   the   finding   of   guilt   even   in   the   departmental   enquiry
proceedings.
28.   The   constitutional   court   while   exercising   its   jurisdiction   of
judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
would   not   interfere   with   the   findings   of   fact   arrived   at   in   the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or
perversity   i.e.   where   there   is   no   evidence   to   support   a   finding   or
where   a   finding   is   such   that   no   man   acting   reasonably   and   with
objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there
is   some   evidence   to   support   the   conclusion   arrived   at   by   the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
19. Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   the   Division   Bench
has   proceeded   on   the   premise   that   the   responsibility   was   of   the
Branch   Manager   along   with   the   Assistant   Manager(Cash).     Hence,
the respondent could not have been held responsible for the lapses
15

of   those   officers   and   proceeding   on   the   said   foundation,   set   aside
the penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent but the record
of   enquiry   clearly   manifests   that   it   was   a   factual   error   being
committed   by   the   High   Court   while   setting   aside   the   domestic
inquiry   and   the   consequential   punishment   inflicted   upon   the
respondent delinquent.
20. In   the   course   of   enquiry,   a   documentary   evidence   came   on
record that although Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna was the Manager of
the   Branch   but   the   date,   i.e.,   10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999   on   which
the theft was committed, the custodian of cash were the respondent
along   with   the   Assistant   Manager(Cash).     The   finding   has   been
recorded   by   the   inquiry   officer   in   his   report   holding   that   the
respondent   delinquent   was   the   custodian   of   cash   in   keeping   the
keys in cash safe/strong room in the almirah of the stationery room
overnight and not keeping the same in his personal custody as per
rules of the Bank along with Assistant Manager(Cash).  The finding
of   fact   was   confirmed   by   the   Disciplinary/Appellate   Authority     in
upholding the guilt of the respondent as he had failed in discharge
of   his   duties   as   a   custodian   when   the   theft   had   taken   place   on
16

10 th
/11 th
  November,   1999   but   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned
judgment   has   not   taken   pains   to   examine   the   finding   recorded   by
the   inquiry   officer   in   reference   to   the   responsibility   which   the
respondent delinquent failed to discharge as a custodian of cash at
the relevant point of time when the theft was committed.
21. That apart, what has been recorded by the inquiry officer has
been   revisited   by   the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   and   after   re­
appreciation   of   record   of   inquiry   and   due   application   of   mind,   the
appellate   authority   while   exonerating   the   respondent   delinquent
from charge no. 3 held charge nos. 1 and 4 proved against him and
punished him by an order dated 23 rd
  December, 2002.   Neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has
taken   pains   to   look   into   the   finding   which   was   recorded   by   the
inquiry  officer in reference to charge nos. 1 and 4 and appreciated
thereafter   by   the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   in   passing   of   the
order of penalty inflicted upon the respondent delinquent.
22. In   our   considered   view,   the   finding   which   has   been   recorded
by the High Court in the impugned order is unsustainable and not
supported with the report of inquiry available on record.
17

23. The   submission   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent
that   the   inquiry   officer   was   biased   and   that   caused   prejudice   to
him,   suffice   it   to   say,   that   merely   making   allegation   that   he   was
biased is not sufficient unless supported by the material placed by
him   either   during   the   course   of   inquiry   or   before   the
disciplinary/appellate   authority.     Even   no   submission   was   made
before the High Court also and it deserves no consideration except
rejection.
24. So far as the submission regarding non­supply of document is
concerned,   inquiry   officer   has   observed   that   the   record   which   was
demanded by the respondent delinquent was made available to him
except   the   one   which   was   confidential   in   nature   still   he   was
permitted for inspection.  At the same time, the respondent failed to
show   as   to   what   prejudice   has   been   caused   to   him  in   reference   to
the alleged non­supply of the documents demanded by him.
25. The further  submission of learned counsel for  the respondent
that   the   decision   of   the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   being   a
non­speaking and cryptic in nature is concerned, it is a sorry state
of affairs to say so that both the orders of the disciplinary/appellate
18

authority   are   on   record   and   cogent   reasons   have   been   assigned
while   concurring   with   the   finding   of   the   inquiry   officer   in   order   of
the   disciplinary   authority.     The   appellate   authority   also,   after   due
appreciation   of   the   record   of   inquiry   and   confirmed   by   the
disciplinary   authority,   arrived   to   the   conclusion   that   the   finding
recorded in reference to charge no. 3 is not proved and held charge
nos.   1   and   4   proved   on   the   basis   of   which   he   was   persuaded   to
modify   the   punishment   under   the   Order   dated   23 rd
  December,
2002.
26. In   our   considered   view,   the   High   Court   has   exceeded   in   its
jurisdiction   while   interfering   with   the   disciplinary   proceedings
initiated   against   the   respondent   delinquent   and   being
unsustainable deserves to be set aside.
27. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.     The
judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dated   21 st
January, 2021 is accordingly quashed and set aside.  No costs.
28. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
  
………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
19

       ……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
20