LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Regional Manager, UCO Bank and Another vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 203Decided 18 Feb 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1457 of 2022
Ajay Rastogi · Abhay S. Oka

Background

The respondent, an Assistant Manager at UCO Bank's Sewla Branch, Agra, was one of the joint custodians of cash when a theft of Rs. 12 lakh occurred from the branch's cash safe in November 1999. A departmental inquiry found him guilty of negligently leaving the safe keys unattended overnight and failing to maintain the key register, and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service; the appellate authority later modified this to compulsory retirement. The Allahabad High Court (both a Single Judge and a Division Bench) set aside the punishment, reasoning that responsibility lay with the Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager (Cash), not the respondent.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a factual error: the documentary evidence clearly showed the respondent, not just the Manager, was a joint custodian of the cash and keys on the date of the theft, and this finding was never actually challenged by the respondent during the inquiry itself. Reiterating settled law (citing B.C. Chaturvedi and Deputy General Manager v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava), the Court held that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking whether the inquiry was fair, followed natural justice, and was based on some evidence. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate body. Since the inquiry findings were supported by evidence and the disciplinary/appellate authorities had given reasoned orders, the High Court had exceeded its limited review jurisdiction by second-guessing the factual findings. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and restored the punishment, quashing the High Court's judgment.

Lesson Learnt

Courts reviewing a departmental disciplinary inquiry under Articles 226/136 do not reassess the correctness of the findings on merits. They only check for fairness of process, compliance with natural justice, and whether the finding is based on some evidence at all; if there is evidence supporting the finding, courts cannot substitute their own view of the facts.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case