W.P. NG. f.59 v. Dena Benk & Ors.

BB: Hoii'ble Mr. Jiistice S^tlsh K» Agaihotyi^ J Miss Deepall Paiidey, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri P. S, Koshy, Aflvc%"ate for the respondents. ORDRR ( ^1%eptember, 2006) The foUo^Tiag order of the Court was passed by 8%tish K. Agg&ihotri, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition iiiide.r Article 226 of the Constitiition of TBdia iTnpiigning the dismissal order dated 30,8.1989 (Arsnexure P/1)> rejecfion ofthe appesl vide oi'derdated 24,2.1990 (Aniiexzire. P/4), dismissal of the i-eview petition vide order dated 6.4.1992 (Annexiii-e P/8), comtmiiniceted to the petitioner vide order dated 7/16.4.1992 (AnnexiiirR P/7), and rejection of the review appeRl vide order dated 15.9.1995 (Annexiire. P/11) and seeking iiTkinstRteTinent in sei-vice, award of siispeTi^ion allow^nce or pprt wages with eoniseqiientiel henefits» 9 That the iindispiited fpcts in niiit^hell^ ^re thRt the petitjoner was en eiTiployee of the respondeTiit-nena RanTk. At fhe relevenit tiiTie the petitioner wa^ posfed es Brsnch MRnager^ Abhanpur Branch, District- Raipiir diiririg the periodl from T 985 to 1986. The petitioBer was servred with a charge sTiieet-cTini-siispension order dated 1.9.1988 (Annexiire R/1) to tlie efFect that as Branch Manager, a niiinniber of cheqiies for the credit of M/ s Patel Tmiber Mart were piiirclTiase.d, following the crRdit facilities, RS per the *ssoi/^ut ^'^yqs ^gjeqo c^q^ t^iM. p^^opu^ ^v, ^<itix^uuB ai p^quosaip yutB ^^aoi^i^d ^q^jo s/.(.3B ^Aoqe ^q^jo ^iiB^^p ^qj^ iBpuuuy AAy?c=iq o^ ^aey ^q^ Sui^odx^ Aq^ic=>q^ t-»/j/\( o^ jio/pue jp^tuiq o.|i jio/puB ^u^ip ifiy^ MBg aeAfcaej\i ^q^ o^ uiBS AietuiioyJ/oSe^u^Ape ^iiputi SuiAiS j^o 001^0^01 Q[O^ ^q^ q^iM ^yiiib^qo oq^ Sui^Bqojiad ^q pB]/^ Ji^qtuij^ p^e^ s/j^i 04 s^ilpej ^tpaLi^ ^iipuii pc^MOiie j^aoi^i^d ^qj^ •ii/^iiig siq paniuipB puy gy/Sl /e uo ^oyytO P^^H ldl4+ J° ^^^^y^Q ^3tie[i§i^Y ^q^ o^ J^AO p^puBq <^q qoiqM ^po^siiD [euoyj:<jd SILI ui ^JIB^ j^qtiiij^ p^^d y?/N Aq p^i^od^p s^ttb^qo ^H^JO ^uo ^d^/p^uiB^p ^^uot^i^d ^qj^ •^/^ab^qo tioi^epouiaio^^e jo ^^eqoj.iid ^e^i[pej o.ji q^ue^y ^iidueqqv ^e s^nbyq^ ^u^ifcb^sqiiy p^seq^jKia jt^uoi^i^^d ^44 q.jiqM uo ^Bp ^uies ^q^ uo qouejiy jttiduBqqv ^B p^Apo^a ^JI^M q^ae^yi jndueqqv Aq p.aisBq3jii<I ^/^iib^tp j^o ^o^ds^ii ui q3ue^q uieAptto pies4 ^q[4 jo ^^siApe ^ipyiio ^q^ .(.Bq.(. aati'su^ 04 qouejiq iLieAipao jo sj^^^yj^o/jiQSeaej^t tpaaiy ^iy t^iM p^piiiioo y^ 'Ai^Alpp pueq Aq ^ays ^J^M ^UIBS ^eq^ je<xIde/Moqs-> o^ S^UBQ ^q^ jo 's^ooci ciq^ ai ^^iji^u^ osiej ^peat paB ^po^sfio |^uosj^d ^iq ai soiibaq^ oq^ ^d3>[/p^aie^p A'lpysuoti^EiBaii j-^aoi^t^^d ^qj^ 'qouBjq ^<^MB.ip ^q^ ^e p^iiouoq ^JL^M. ^^iib^q^ p^^eqojxid (Ai^iioiAyiici p^seq3j[itd ^JQA ^uyiib^^qus s^tibaqo ^soqM) i[i^i Me?g; aB^Bji^y^ ^/N J0 +^P^&-> ^oj ^uiioooe ^A0t][e ^^ qStiojiq^ A^uotu/'spaifcj/^taiyii o:^ ^jLisy^ .t^qauj^ p^B^i s/i^ MOiie o^ uopao^ui ^os ^q^ q^tM s^iib^iio p^sBtpjiid OH B^seq.LM£id ^Bq^. ^jti^a^ o^ jo ^ep iei4^e ^q^ Suiie^.juoo Aq^j^^q^ pue s^(iiip^q3y ^Ttboqo Suipjie^u.oj^ pies yq^ jo ^ep ^q^ ao p^saq^iiid x^j^M s^tib^qo ^t^ ^ety .le^ddiy o^ ^^iib^q^ py^eq^jiitd jo ^itipoqas §utpj;0Auo^ ^q^ py*i^^ie/p^oeidQ.i/py+eitidiaeta ^^ 's/^iibQq3 ^^tyoae A^q s/^iibyiip p.a>3B|d<M ^H 't-ssiub^ip ttoi^epotaiao33H s^ p^^eq^jiiid A[^u^iapiiBjtj c)j^ •c)Oi^OBjid §ai>[ueq{etisti oq+ ^ouoj o^ p^iiej .i^uofc^i.ji.aid Qqj^ •6 y "9 'y •17 e •£ t» p^^immoo jisittoi^i^d oq^ Aq.aLi^t^ t786l'£lall P^^p Jt^^ail uot^oues -:S-»^pUBltl§QJLll:§UIMOI[OJ 3

3. Tt w^^ fi^rtber ch^rged th^t fhe petitioner piirchased one bill of Rs. RQOOn/- nnder RP 1^3 on 5/4/^5, rlrawn on M/s Patel Timber M^rt.. The s^ifl Rill W^RS retiin"ied by the OrlTiRv Bi'Riidii, Ahmedehafl on 17/06/RR, Instead of recovering the Bill aiDount with interest firom M/s Pate1 TiTnher Mart, the petjtioner had cliioseB to repiirchese the same Bi11 iinder BP 177 on 27/06/198R aTir} reveraRcl the eairliRr enhy nf BP 123. TlTien the Bill No. 177 wes retiii'ned i<npeid and the petitioner dici not matce eny notings/i'eiB.Rrlcs^ writings in the hooks of the Banik ancl detairied t1re said ret^iinied hi11 with himself The petitioner pai?1 Rs, 15.60 ;RS postage when the seid Bi11 w^s I'etiimed by the State Bank of Tndia^ Rakhiel, The petitiorser bad even failerl to recover tbe bil1 eynoiint t1iroiigh the above mentioned Odhav Rrancli, AhiTieflabed,

4. The ehove Rcts of t1"ie petitioner ^rere treRtecl as iTiiscondiict oflack of honesty, integrity, diligence, devotion in disch^rge of diifies and/or msTiipiiileting the Bank recorrls, and/or meneiivering to concesl the fects^ end/or coTi^mittiTig the fraiid on the bank, and/or act/s prejiiidicie1 to the interest of the Renk involving or 1ike1y to involve the B^nk in heevy fjn^ncial lo^s/risk anri/or Act/s iiT^heconiing of R Bank Officer. TTie seid acts of miscondiict, proved, BTnoiints to conticRvenition of Regiiletion 3(1) read witb the RegiilRtion 24 of tlie nena Rank Officet*s Employees> (CoTiduct) RegTTlations 1Q76, piimshahle nnder nena Rank Officer Rmployees> (niscipline ansd AppeRl) Regiilations

1976. The petitionier was ce11er1 itpon to ^iiilsmit tbis explanatioiii within a period of7 days.

5. JTI response to tTie said charge-sheet -ciiTn- sitispension order ttie. petTtioner sTibTiiiittecl liis rep1y on 30.Q, 1988 (Anniexiire R/2) statiTig tliiat the petitioner in his letter dated 3.12-1986 had sli-eRdy eriTnitted tbe inejor r>harges levelled Bgeinst hiTn. Tbe petitioner MfiT-ii'r' 4 ^^ mede ^ miercy appeal to forgive him Ikeeping in view of his sei'vice for 16 years and heving five chiMren. The petitioner made one i^ore representation on 19.10,1988 (Arsnexiire R/3)^ submitting ^oTne explenation, confessing th^t the illegalities hpve been connimitted by him, bowever, it w^^ <%iibrnitted that ^ince 130 1oss was caiised to the Ban1<, the case of the petitione.r shoiild be consiclerefl synifpatTie(Tice11y ersd he he piinisbedl with stopping of incpeTnenits, 6, One Sbri V. K. Jain was appointed as enquiiy Officer. Diie notice wes given to the petjtioner and the petitioner participated in tbe e.ncpiiiry, end in the enqiiiiy slso the petitioner ha^ admitted his gsiiilt in categoricel tenTis, siibmitting tbat no loss has been caiised to fhe petitioner and the case. ofttie petitioner shoiild be dealt witlTi syinpetheticalty, The Enqiiiry Officer siihTnitted his report on n.7.1989. 7, The disciplinary autliority i.e. Zonsil Menager accepting the finiding of1he enqiiiiy officer on the cherges fraTnEed enri proved, disiBi^sed t1^e. delinqiient officer withoiiit notice in exercise of powers iinder Regiiletion 7 (3) of the Dena Banik Officer Employees (Discipline ^ Appeal) Regiiletions 1976 by oiTler clated 30.8.1989 (Arinexiire P/1). The statnitory appeal dfflterl 12.9.1989, pirc-femeril by the petifioner before. the Rppellate ei^thority i.e. Depiity Genei'al Menager (Sociel RBniking DepartiTient), was dismissed vide memo i deted 24< 2.1990 (Anne.xiiire P/4), confiirming the oi^er passed by the Zona1 Manager, M.P. 7/one, Rliopsl.

8. The review petition deted 1.5.1990, ffled by the petjtioner against the order of tliie appellete aiitlhority wes also di^miissed by the General Manager (PA8B) (Reviewing Aiithority) vide. order d^ted

6.4.1992 (ATiinexiire P/8), communicate.d to the petitioner vide memo dated 7.4.1992 (Annexui'e P/7). The second review appeal fileri by the petitioner dRted 26.8,1995 was also disTnissed OB the groiind of non-TneiTiitainehility vide memo dBted 1S.9J99S (Annex^ure P/ 11). 9, Miss Deepeli P^ndey, leamed coi:inse1 ^ppearing for the petitioTiier siibinittefl thet the petitioner hes filed this petitioni OD the groiind that TIO enqiiiiy repoTl was s^iipplierl to the petiticmer, relevant dociiitTients were not siipplied diiring the enrpiiTy and the piJTiiishiTientt ewsrderi to the petitioner i<$ flisproportionete to the aets of the mii^r'onrhict coiBi^itted by the petitioBer. I^e^n^ed coiinsel relied on cteiiise (vii) of the cleim applicstion in respect of the advances to ttie borrou7ers to the effect th^t the loss in respect of the credit fecilily/ies iinder clRim has riiot ariseni on ao:"oiint of ?iny negligence in the ohsen/rance of tTie iiiiecessR?y safegiiards and procediires in regard to apprais^l, ^iipervision ?9ind follow iip of tbe c'T'r.dit fecilily or ^ny fli^horie^ty on the part of oiir employees or owing to decisions token hy theTn conh-Rry to or in contriRvention of fhe in?%trjiictioT?s issiied hy IKS or flie coTporstion^ to siibniit th^t the petitione.r had observe<l ?i11 the necessary s^fegiierdls procediires in regerd to appreisal ., ^npervision anri follow Tip ofthe credit feci1i1y< TTiiitis, the petitioner coiiilrl not be helrl giiilty of 1os^ IB 1'espect of the credit fecility,

10. S1"iri P. S. Koshy, leen^ed coiinsel eppearinig for tbe respOTidents, per contre; siiihmitted thaf the petitionerwas given fiill opporhinity to flefencl his case. The. petitioner io his repii^sentations dated 3n.Q.TQ8R ariri 1Q.10.1988 aR also departmRntal proceedings, has c^le^irly arsdl cRtegoric^llly acimiittefl a11 the major charges levellerl sgfliinst litim. The pefifioner has not denied thst any act^ charged against hiim, w^s Tiot committed hy hiiTi but has gwen explanetion thRt tbe same wa^ comTnitted on certein circiiiTistances pnd no fin^nciRl loss lias heen caiisfdl to the Bank. :ffc^

11. AccoTTling to leerned coiir?se1 for tl^e respondents, the petitioner I^RS seived 'witl^ f1iie enqiiiiiiy report along with the orrter, which is evident from the. reRding of the orrler itse1€ No notice was giveni before the fina1 orcler was pessed^ as the facts and circumistances of the case when the cherges levelleril against the petitioner heve been sidmitted by the petitioner, no iisefiil puipose woiild have heers served hy giving liiirn a second show caiise notice after the enqiiiiy before impositioni of the penalty. The petitioner wes giver? all the relevant mRterials as requiTed hy him. 12^ T heve besTrl leaniied coiinse-1 fbr tltie perties end penised the recoiTls Rppenrled to the petition ^s al^o to tltie retiiirn. Tt is evideTit thet the petitioner hsid admitted p11 the cTiarges levelted agamst hirn ars<1 the flefence of the j[)etitioner we^ only to tlie exte.nt that there. was no finenciel 1oss ceiiseril to fhe Bank, The petitioiiier WR<S siipplied witb -Rn enqiiiiTy report slso alorig with the order. The petitionier epproached tbe appellate aiithority, revisionel aiithority efter having rece.ived the eniiqiiiTy report. Thns, tbe piirpose of issiiing second ^how CRIISC notice hes also been seryed and the petitiorser hes siifficieDt opportixnily to siihmit his explanatioiK to the enqniiy report The petitioner hes fsirther failed fo piDve as to whether ^ny prejiidice was caii^ed to him by non Tssiiance of the second show csiiise notice after enqiiiiy. Hence in the fRcts and circnmstances of the case it he1d tliist the procediiiral n3lqiiirements ini condiiict of an eBqinry anfl thereefter before passing fhe iHipiigned order of teiTniriation has ^iifHciently been met with enfl no iiTegiilariily, impropriely, or illegality has been noticed/ foit nd in the enqiiiTy and thereafter.

13. The reliance ofleamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner on claiise (vii) of the applicatioTii fomis, credit facilily ia mispleceft es fhe charges are 5,^S&ii.S—*»-"i.^-Si ^ thet tbe petitioner comTsiiitted negligence and difl not follow tTtie 1'eqiiired procediii^ while gi'BTiiting credit fecility to the distoiiners,

14. The Supreme Couirt m the case of Vlvefea Naad Sethi Vs. Cliairman, J fe K Banfe Ltd. asi*l. ot.feers {(2005) 5 SCC 3.37) in pars 22 has ohsei-ved thii^ ;- "22. The principle of natiir?i1 jiistice.^ it is trite^ is no iiinnily horse. When fR^ts are ^rimifted;. an eniqiiiry woiiild be an empty foitT^elily. Rven ttie pnnciple of e^toppel will apply, (See Gzirjewaji Garewal (Dr,) v. Dr. Suniiti^ Dash3}, The principles of niahirel j^istice nre reqiiired to be coniplied with It l^eving regiRrd to the fact sitiiatif>rii ohtaiTring therein, cannot he pist 1111 o straitjaeket Fon^iile. Tt cannot be Rpplied in a vaciiiiiTn witlTioiiit reference fo the relevent fects and circiimstences of the cese. (See Stete of Piirsjab v. ^Jagir Singh and Kaj-aataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa5.)

1.5. The Supreme Coiirt m the case ofM. ¥.Bijl^mi Vs. XJsiioB of Isidia %nd otlaers {(2006) 5 SCC 88) m para 2.5 has obsewed thus :- "25. Tt i^ tnie t1hat the jiinsfliction of tlie coiirt ir) judicial revie^v is 1iTiiiitec1. nisciplini^iy proceedings^ Tiowever^ being q-siasi-cnTniinel in niatiire, there shoulfl be some evidence to prove t^e cli^rge., A1thoiig1i in R departi^eotal pT-oceerlirig ar>e not reqiiirefl to be proved like ^ crii^inBl triel i.e. heyoTKl a11 reRSoi~iBh1e doisht, we csnTiot 1ose ^ight of t1iie t1ite €"1"$Rrges ttie enquiiy offseer pei'foiTrts R qiiesi--jurilicial fiiTicfiors^ who iipori anely^ing tlie fSociiimeTits BTiiist arrive at e concliision that there hed been R pi'epondteraTice of probahility to prove tbe clitarges on the basis of materials on recorril. While doing so^ he cannot tatee inlo coTiisideratioii any in'etevent fect- He csnnot refuse to consirler the relevaBt facts. He c^ninot shift tlie hiirdeTi of proof He cennot iTJect the relevRTit testiTnony of the witness only on the basis of siirmise^ ^nd conjecfiires. He caTinot enqiiire into the allegRtions with whicTi the delinqiient officer hed not been chRrged with^

16. The Siipieme Conrt in the cese of Syndicate Benk snd others V», Venkatesh Giinirao Kiirati ((2006) 3 SCC 150} in para 18 has held thiis :- ^ ^ 18. Tn oiir vie^?^ non-siipply of dociiiiTiente on whicb the enqiiiry officer does nof rely diiring the coiirse of eiiiqiiiry does not creete any preji^di'ce to the delinqiient, Tt is oaly those dociiTnents which ore relied iipon by the enqiiiiy officer to errive at his concliision, the non-siipply of which woiild caiise prejiidice^ being violative ofprinciples ofneturail jiistice. Ever? the non-siipply of those dociimente prejiidice the cese of the delinqiient officer niiist be e^tRhlishefl hy the rlelinqiient officer. Tt is well-settled law tben, that the rloctrine of principles of netiiT-Rl jiisfice are not embodied nsles, Tt cannot be piit in a streitjacket fonniile. Tt depends iipon the fects ^nr1 drcjimstances ofeadi ca^e. To siislain tbe eltegetion of viol^tion of principles of natiirel ji^stiice, one msiEst estehlish thaf prejiiidice. has been ceiised to Tiim for non-ol^seTvance ofprinciple^ ofnetiiral jii^tice.*1

17. The Supreme Com't m Oo^. of T. N. asid others Vs. S. Vel Raj { (1997) 2 8.C.C. 708} obsewed that "tlie flnding rRcoTrled hy the Enquiiry Officer and confiirmed hy tbe appellsite aiithority were besed iipon the evidence led diiring the enqiiiTy ^nd it was not evers contenidlefl fh-Rt the said findings were pen^ei^e^ It w^as^ rtiei-efore^ not open to the TribiinRl (o record conitreTy findirsgs and hold that tlie cherge ageinst the respondent was not proved.^

18. The SupreiEie Court the case of Kiildeep Sisigh ¥s. Commissioner of Poliee aad otliers { (1999) 2 S-C.C. 10} obseived as iinfler :- aQ^ Nonaelly (he High COIITI artd fliiis Coiirt woiiild not recoTrled at interfere with the findings of fact domestic enqiiiry biil if the finding of agii]ii11^ is besed oni no evidence, it woiild T>e pei-verse finding ancl woiild be amenahle fo jiidiciel scnifiny, A broad distinctioTii ha^, to he maintainied ttierefon3;, between tbe decisionis which are per^erse and those

10. which are not. Tfa flecision is» smved et on no evidence or evidence which is thoroiighly iinrelieble and no reesonable person woiild act iipon if, the order woiilril be perver^e. Biit if tliere is soniie evirlence on record wl^ich m ^ceeptable end whicli woiild be relied iipon, howsoever coniipendioshs it may be, the concliisions wo? ilri not be treateri es pei'verse ancl woiiM not be interfered with?\ the fiodings

19. The aiiother case of Yoglsaatla ¥s»Btate of M^I&iirashtra t»Btd another, ( (1999) 7 SCC 739), the Siipreme Coiirt after corjisiderirtg the earlier decisions ohseivefl as ijinder :- a51.,..The law is we11 settled fhet ifthe flndings are pervei-se end are not siipported by evirlence on PRCOTXI or the findmgs recorded et tlie domestic triel aret siich to which no reesoneble per^OTi woiild heve T-eacbed^. it woiild be opers to the High Coiirt RS elso to tMs CoiiT't to intei'fere in the matt'er. Tn Kiildeep v. ComTnT. of Police tliiis Coiirt, relying iipon tbe eerlier decision^ in Nanrl KisboiT* Pr^sad v, State of Bihsr, Stete of Andhrs Piadesh v, Rame Reo, Cenfral Bank of Tndia I/td, v. Prakash Ch^nd <I?iin, Bharet Tron Work^ v, Bhagiiibhei B^liibhai Patel ^s ^lso Rajinder Kidmar Kindre v. DelTii ArilmTii. laid rlown thet altlioTigh fhe coiirt csnnot sit 111 appeal over the finding^ recorried by the disciplinaiy Riiitborify or the enqiiin^ officer in a rilepartmental eBqiiiry, it rioes Dot meari in no circiimstaTice can the coiirt iTitei'fere. Tt was ohser^ed thet t'he power of JTxdicial review available to a High Coiirt as also to this Coiirt iKnder the Con^titution fakes in its stride the dlornestic enqitiiry as well and tbe coiirts can interfere with the conicliisions reached therein if there ^¥BS no evidence to ^iipport fhe findings or the findings recorriled were siich as coiild not heve been i-eeched by an orrlinary pniirierit roan or the findiogs were pen7erse5\

20. In case ofB.C. Cliat.iir^edi V^. iJBiois of I^idia asid otlxers {(1995) 6 SCC 749} obsei-ved es Tinder:- "12. ,IudiciRl review is riiot RT) ?ippea1 from ?3i decision hut a review of tlie manner in whicTi the decision is made. Power of jiidicial review is meant to eTisiii-e thet tbe 10 indwidiial I'eceives fhir tr^tment and not to eiisiire that t1"se condiision wliich the eiiit1"ion1y reeches ia necessanty correct in the eye of flie Co^irt, Wher? an eTiqiiiry is condiicterl on charges of iTiiscondnct by a piiblic seryant, detenTiine whetlier the Court/TrihTanel is conicenied to tTiie inqiiiTy wes held by o competent officer or wliiether niles of natiirail jiiMice complied with, Whelltier fsndings concliisions ere based on some. evidence, the aiithorily entniisted with tJhe powe.r jiirisdiction, power Riid Riithorily to reRch iR finding of fact or c'oTicliision. Riiiit that findirsg miist be based on iraqiiiTy has to holfl some evidence. Neithe.r the technical niiiles of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidenice ^s flefined thereini^ Rpp1y to discipliiiiiary proceeding. WTien the anithority accepts that evidence arsrl concliiisk^n iwewes. siipport therefrom^ t1te <1iscip1in??ry ?ii?tbori1y is entitled to ho1dl tliiat fhe de1iinqiieTi?t oPRcer is giiilly of the cherge» The Coiiiil/Tribiinal in it^ powey ofjiidici^il review does not ^ct as 3ppe11ete. eiitliority to reappi'eciate the evidence end to errive at its own independent fiindings on the evidence, The Coiii't/Tnbiinal iii^iy intei'fere where the. aijithority he1d the proceeflings egain^t tliie dlelinqiient officer in a manner inconsistent with the niles of TD^tiiral jtiistice or prescrihing fhe mode of concliision or finrliTig reecberil hy tTie disciplinary in violation of ^tRtiitory niles inqTiiTy or where eiitTiority is beseril on no evidence, Ifthe concliision or finding be siiich as no rea^onable per^oo woiild have ever reeched^ tlie Coiirt/Trihiiriial iBay interfere with tliie c<me1iision or the finding, anrl moiild tTie relief so as to iniake it appropri^te to the facts ofeach case^.

21. Tn ariother liBtest decision^ tliie Siipreme Coiirt ini V. RaiKiaaaa Vs. A.P. SRTC and otlieirs { (2005) 7 SCC 338) obsen/ed as imder;- "11, The common thread nsnning throiigh in all decisions is tbet the conirt shoiild not interfere with tbe admini^trelT)r?s flecision iinless it w^s illogicel or siiffers from proceclTiral impropriety orwas shocking to the conscience oftbe coiirt^ in the <-senise that itwes in 11 defiance or 1ogic or morRl standards. Tn view ofwhat 1^es heen stated in Werlnesbiuy case the coiirt woiild not go into the correcl-ne^s of the choice mHde hy the iRflTniTiistr^tor open to liim and fhe coiirt shoTiilrl not siihstitiiste it^ decision for that of the admini^trator, Thfk scope ofjiiiflici^il revie^7 is limited to the deficiency in decisiors-meking process and not the dlecision>?, 22- It is we11 ^ettled principle oflew tTi^t the scope ofjiadiciel review is limited to the cleficiency ini rileci.sion making process, not decisioTi. In the presenif case the allegetions ofthe ch^rges levell^d egsinst the petititoner h?)ve been estahlishefl on the hesis of the ^iifTicient evidence, which e Tie.sisoneble ixkrson acting reesonahly end witti objectivily, Tn^y anive ^i ^ findiTtg ofTioldinig the ch^y^es ageinst the rilelinqiient officer. provec!.

23. As ?i resiilt aiirl for the reasons st^tert-ehove/this petition fails end is dismissefl. No orrler ss to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur