STATE BANK OF INDIA & Anr. v. K.S. VISHWANATH

dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court was exercising the powers of the appellate authority. The High Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent-delinquent officer from service. The High Court erred in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which as such were on appreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. [Para 7.2, 8][153-F-G; 160-D-F]

1.4 The submission on behalf of the respondent-delinquent officer that as he has been acquitted in a criminal court and therefore, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary proceeding is concerned, cannot be accepted. From the judgment and order passed by the criminal court it appears that he has been given the benefit of doubt. The fact that the criminal court acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, would not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. [Para 9][160-F-H; 161-A]

1.5 Even the modus operandi adopted by the delinquent officer also deserves the consideration. As per the evidence on record, he went along with the false and fabricated document along with another person and he introduced that person as a new cashier and he ensured that the voucher was not signed by him but signed by the other person who was introduced by him as a A B C D E F G H 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R. A B C new cashier. Therefore, he saw to it that there is no evidence on record that he actually received the money. This shows the criminal mind/conduct on the part of the delinquent officer. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/ management had committed any error in dismissing the respondent-delinquent officer from service. [Para 10][161-C-E] Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others AIR 1978 SC 1277 : [1978] 3 SCR 708 – relied on.