GM. (OPERATIONS) s .. s.1 & Anr. v. R. PERIYASAMY

Minister of National Revenue v. Wright's Canadian Ropes Ltd. (1947) AC 109 at 122 ; Associated . Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Cpn. (1948) 1 KB 223 at 228 ; Fawcett Properties Ltd. v. Buckingham County Council (1959) Ch. 543 at 575, affirmed (1961) AC 636 ; Point of Ayr Collieries Ltd. v. Lloyd - George (1943) 2 All ER 546 - referred to. B C 0

#4. It was not permissible for the High Court to proceed to draw an inference that there was a failure of natural justice in the bank having denied certain documents, in absence of proof that any such letter demanding certain documents was received by the appellant-Bank. An administrative authority such as the appellant, cannot be put to proof of the facts or conditions on which the validity of its order must depend, E unless the respondent-employee can produce evidence which will shift the burden of proof on the shoulders of the appellant. How much evidence is required for this purpose will always depend on the nature of that particular case. [Para 11][942-A-C] F

#5. The Division Bench approved the findings of the Single Judge that the inquiry report that the shortage of cash occurred only between 16.11.1985 and 05.04.1986, when the respondent was a joint custodian, was based G on surmise and conjecture, without adverting to the evidence. That evidence was rightly relied on by the enquiry officer which established that the shortage did . occur between 16.11.1.985 and 05.04.1986. [Para 12] [942-D-F] H 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

#6. Sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not the ground on which the findings of facts may be set-aside by the High Court under Article 226. The justification offered by the Division Bench that the Single Judge had to undertake the exercise of analysing the findings of the enquiry officer because the appellants had deprived the respondent of his livelihood is wholly untenable. A transgression of jurisdiction cannot be justified on the ground of consequences, as has been done. [Para 12)[942-H; 943-A-B] Mathura Prasad v. Union of/ndia & Ors. (2007) 1 sec 437 : 2006 (8) suppl. scR 264 - distinguished . 7. The Division Bench was also not correct in offering the justification that there was no failure on the part of the respondent to observe utmost devotion to duty because the. case was not one of misappropriation but only of a shortage of money. [Para 12][943-C-D]

#8. Therefore, the impugned order is s.et aside and the writ petition of the respondent is dismissed. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the appellant to pay an adhoc· sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent employee who retired long ago and has drawn pension of which he will be deprived hereafter. [Paras 13 and 14)[943-D-F] '