"Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried": Madras High Court Upholds Order Quashing Disciplinary Proceeding Conducted Within Two Weeks
2 Apr 2025 6:43 PM
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the General Manager & Reviewing Authority of the Canara Bank against an order of the single judge quashing the disciplinary proceedings against an employee.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Vadamalai noted that while disciplinary proceedings usually take a few months to conclude, the disciplinary proceedings in the present case were concluded within two weeks. The court thus said that the committee had shown undue hate for bringing the enquiry to a closure.
“We take judicial notice of the fact that disciplinary proceedings of this nature would normally take at least a few months to conclude. 'Justice hurried is justice buried' is a well known adage. It is inconceivable that the entire proceedings could have been concluded in a fair manner within a period of two weeks,” the court said.
The court remarked that disciplinary proceedings are not like a bullet train journey and should be conducted in a manner with a possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. While the court noted that the proceedings need not be slow, it had to be carried on with a reasonable speed. The court added that the proceedings should be permeated with fairness and the end result should not be premeditated.
“A disciplinary proceeding should not resemble a point to point bullet train journey. A charge memo need not necessarily culminate in punishment. The delinquent employee stands the chance of being exonerated also. The proceeding should therefore be conducted in a manner that is pregnant with the possibility of “two roads diverging in the yellow woods”. There must be halting stations. And the halts should be meaningful and not for the sake of it. The process need not be necessarily slow. It can very well be carried on with reasonable speed and despatch. The Judge carrying out the task of judicial review must get the feeling that the entire process was permeated with fairness and that the end result was not predetermined,” the court said.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by the management against the order of the single judge setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the authority. The allegation against the employee was that while working as the Branch Manager of Canara Bank from 2007 to 2009, he had sanctioned a large number of loans in favour of self-help groups. He was later transferred in 2009. A charge memo was issued in 2012 containing seven articles of charge.
The court noted that though the employee was called on to offer his explanation within 15 days, the enquiry commenced without waiting for his reply and was completed within 2 days. The enquiry officer also submitted that report within a few days and the employee's representation was also obtained on the same day. The disciplinary authority passed an order after 4 days agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposing a punishment of dismissal from service.
The management argued that the in-house investigation reports clearly revealed that the employee, as a sanctioning authority, did not adhere to the procedure laid down in the bank norms and due to the improper, irregular, and fraudulent loan disbursement, the bank suffered huge financial loss. Thus, it was argued that the bank was justified in imposing the punishment. Challenging the order of the single judge, the bank management argued that the writ court could not assume the function of a fact finder or decide the quantum of punishment to be awarded.
The court noted that though procedure was followed, there was undue haste. The court noted that the employee was given only 15 days to offer his explanation and the enquiry commenced even without waiting for his reply. The court also noted that the enquiry officer had marked 96 documents and examined 17 witnesses within 2 days. Further, the court also noted that the enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent even before submitting it to the disciplinary authority. Thus, the court deemed the entire exercise to be “whirlwind proceedings”.
From the entire sequence of events, the court also suggested that the employee seemed to have been given an assurance that he would be let off lightly if he cooperated, as no employee would otherwise willingly participate in the proceedings without submitting his defence statement. The court held that the employee was led like a lamb to be mercilessly slaughtered. The court concluded that the process was not fair and an interference was justified.
“When it comes to adherence to principles of procedural fairness, we would expect the employer to be an exemplar. They cannot take advantage of the acquiescence on the part of the employee. By no stretch of imagination can the process that had taken place in this case held to be fair. On this sole ground, interference is justified,” the court said.
The court also noted that the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not detail the defences taken by the employee. The court thus agreed with the single judge that the orders were non-speaking ones. Considering all the facts, the court found no reason to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Dilip Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M.E.Ilango
Case Title: The General Manager and Others v. SV. Mothilal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
Case No: WA(MD)No.932 of 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment