WP/16223/2020 of Batta Satyanarayana Vs State Bank of India on 31 December 2024

ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the [petitioner]Mandamus declaring that 1S seeking a Writ of

Conclusion

(i) the order' of dismissal [from ][service ][dated ][O8.12.2O15]passed by the Appoinling [Authorit5/ ][and ][commun][icated]vide GM(NW-III) Lr.No.VIG/TPT I Drv 1822 datedro.12.2015; (i0 the order of the Appellate [Authority ][dated ][26.05.2017]communicated vide [DGM ][& ][CDO, ][SBI, LHO, ][Hyderabad]Lr.No.A&R/ 153 [dated ][31.07 ][-2OI7 confirming ][the ][order]of the ApPointing [AuthoritY; ][and]communicated vide [DGM ][& ][CDO, ][SBI, LHO, ][Hyderabad]Lr.No.A&R/ 153 [dated ][31.07 ][-2OI7 confirming ][the ][order]of the ApPointing [AuthoritY; ][and]

(iii) the order of the [Reviewing ][Authority dated ][15' ][12'2018]communicated through [the ][DGM ][& ][CDO, SBI, ][LHO,]Hyderabad in [Lr.No.HR/AR/No.419 ][dated ][08'02'2019]the [decision ][of ][the ][Central Humal]communicated through [the ][DGM ][& ][CDO, SBI, ][LHO,]Hyderabad in [Lr.No.HR/AR/No.419 ][dated ][08'02'2019]the [decision ][of ][the ][Central Humal]communicating Resources Committee, [Corporate Centre, ][rejecting ][the]review petition of [the ]Petitioner,Resources Committee, [Corporate Centre, ][rejecting ][the]review petition of [the ]Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, wittrout any evidence, violative of Artir:Ies 14 and16 of t1.e Constitution of India, violative of principles of law ofevidence ald principles of natural justice and consequentLy to quashand set aside the same; and

(iv) further declare that the petitioner is entifled. to all theconsequential benefits viz., pay and ailowalct:s from thedate of suspension tiII the date of retirement, continuit5rof service, seniority and promoLions ancl terminalbenefits including pension, and to pass such other orderor orders.consequential benefits viz., pay and ailowalct:s from thedate of suspension tiII the date of retirement, continuit5rof service, seniority and promoLions ancl terminalbenefits including pension, and to pass such other orderor orders.

2. Brief facts l:ading to the filing of the present Writ petition arethat the petitioner initially joined in the respondenl:-Bank on20.08.1977 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier; was promoted as Trainee Ofhceron' 01.08.1983; rls Assistant General Manager on O1.11.2OO2.Thereafter, he was posted as Regional Maaager, Regionat BusinessOffrce, Kurnool during May,2OO7. The petitioner claims to have putin 36 years of service in the respondents, orgalization without arrycomplaints whatsoever and submitted that he has received highestaccolades and appreciations throughout his serrice of more than 36years including two appreciations-cum-felicitations from tl.eChairman, SBI and the District Collector for his CommendableService during devastating floods in Kurnool in 2009.

3. It is submitted that while the [petitioner ][was ][working ][as ][an]Assistant General Manager [(IOR), ][SBI, ][LHO, ][Hyderabad, ][a ][charge]memo dated 07 .O4.2O14 [was ][issued ][to ][the ][petitioner levelling ][18]charges, the gist of which [is ][as ][follows:]

(1) The petitioner failed to [exercise ][any ][control ][over ][charges]

i.e., travelling a-liowalce / [expenses.]

(2) He incurred substantial amounts [towards ][travelling]

expenses.

(3) He claimed inflated stationary [and ][printing ][bills.]

(4) He unauth orizndly passed advertisement [bills.]

(5) He sanctioned several [loans ][for particular ][group ][ofpersons']

(6) He exceeded discretionary [powers ][and ][unauthorizedly]sanctioned term Ioal [to ][one ][Sri ][Ramprasad.]sanctioned term Ioal [to ][one ][Sri ][Ramprasad.]

(7) He sanctioned loans [without ][authorit5r for lesser ][margin']

(8) He exceeded the discretionary [powers.]

(9) He unauthoizedly sanctioned [several ][loans which ][fall]under the purview [of Network ][Credit ][Committee ][(NWCC).]under the purview [of Network ][Credit ][Committee ][(NWCC).]

(10) He approved restructuring [of ][instalments ][in ][respect of]certain units.certain units.

(11) He has not cautioned [and ][not ][arranged ][for ][an inquiry ][to]

know the reasons for [exceeding budget.]

(l2l He controiled the sanction of the additional iimits inrespe()t of one Sri R.V. Ramala.respe()t of one Sri R.V. Ramala.

(13) He unauthorizedly allowed one Sri K.Ramanacharlu, CM(RCPC) t,t accord sanctions.(RCPC) t,t accord sanctions.

(14) He has not referred the matter to LHO Technrcal Cell forconducting feasibility and liability study in respect of anindustrial estate.conducting feasibility and liability study in respect of anindustrial estate.

(15) He hzrs not exercised control over advances portfolio ofthe local Kurnool Brarrches.the local Kurnool Brarrches.

(16) He sanctioned the two Rural Ware-house Advancesduring the fag end of tenure at Regional Business Office(RBO), Kurnool.during the fag end of tenure at Regional Business Office(RBO), Kurnool.

(171 He has not insisted for additional collateral se,lurity fromthe promoters of VC Heavens.the promoters of VC Heavens.

(18) By the above actions, bank is likely to incur a loss ofRs.5789.55 1akhs.Rs.5789.55 1akhs.

The petitioner sutrmitted his defence statement on 25.04.2014 but,not being satished with the same, the Disciplinary Authorityappointed an inquiry officer vide reference No.VIG/SGN/ 122 dated28.04.2014 and rhereafter, the Disciplinary Authority placed thepetitioner under suspension vide reference No.(HR-16)/ l7T6 d,ated16.09.2014. It. is submitted that thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a supplementary [charge sheet vide ][proceedings ][in]reference No.VIG/TPT/DTV /617 [d,ated ][22.O9.2O ][14, adding ][charge]No.XIX alleging that the [petitioner ][has ][sanctioned ][several credit]facilities to one Sri K.Ramprasad [and ][his ][wife ][during ][2OO9-2O|O, ][aod]that from the account of [said ][Sri ][K.Ramprasad, ][remittances ][have]been sent to the accounts [of the ][petitioner's sons ][at ][Canada. ][It ][was]thus alleged that the [petitioner ][gained ][pecuniary gains ][to ][his ][sons]and had frnancial dealings [with ][the ][borrowers. ][Further' ][the]Disciplinary Authority, through [his ]letter in Ref'No.VIG/TPI/DTV 1694 dated [16.10.2O14 ][issued ][a ][corrigendum ][to]the additional charge sheet [dated ][22.09.2014 ][adding ][charges]No.XIX(a) to XIX(e) alleging [that ][several ][credit ][facilities ][were]sanctioned by the [petitioner ][to ][Sri ][K.Ramprasad, ][his ][wife ][Smt']K.Sridevi and to the [firms ][in ][which ][they ][were ][proprietors/partners']

4. The learned counsel for the [petitioner ][submitted ][that ][the]Inquiry Ofhcer has [conducted ][the inquiry, ][initially, ][on ][charges ][I ][to]XVIII and thereafter [also ][on ][Charge No.XIX ][and ][submitted his ][report]dated O7.05.2O15 [which ][was communicated ][to ][the petitioner ][by ][the]Circle Vigilance Department [vide ][their ][Ref.No.VIG/TPT/DTV ][dated]Nil (received by the [petitioner ][on ][24.O7.2OL51 ][and ][that ][the Inquiry]Authority, after considering [the ][oral/documentary ][evidence ][relied]upon by both the [sides, ][held ][Charges ][I ][to ][XIV ][ald ][XWI ][and ][XVIII ][as]

not proved, and two charges i.e., Charges No.XV & XV'I as parflyproved and Charge No.XIX as proved. However, the DisciplinaryAuthority has opined that the Charges I, I[, VI, X, XII and XIII arealso proved, Cha:'ges II, V, VIII, IX, XI and XVIII are partly provedand agreed that Charge No.XIX was proved. It is submitted thatwhiie communiceLting the report of the Inquiring Authority, theDisciplinary Authority has conveyed his disagreement to the findingsof the Inquiring [()fficer ]by placing his reliance on the documentaryevidence mentioned in the charge sheet but not on theoral/documentary evidence adduced during the course ,lf enquiry.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the: petitionerhas submitted his detailed representation dt.05.09.2015 zrgainst thedisagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority and also against theInquiry Officer's report, once again reiterating that he has notcommitted any of the irregularities alleged in the charge sheet andpointed out the dehciencies in the inquiry and also submittedarother representation dated 07.1O.2O15 to the DisciplinaryAuthority in continuation of his earlier submissions.

5. It is submitted that instead of the General Manager, being theDisciplinary Authorit5r ald having issued the charge memo arrdconducted the pror:eedings qp to the stagg._gf co4ygylng disagreement with the Inquiry Officers' [hndings, deciding ][the ][issue, has ][halded]over the matter for further [decision ][to ][the ][CGM, ][the ][appointing]authority, in absolute [violation ][of ][tJle service ][rules and ][in ][violation ][of]principles of natural [justice. ]It is [submitted ]that it [is ][the ][genera-l]principle of disciplinary [proceedings ]that [the authority who ][heard]tl're matter, alone should [decide the case, ][but ][in ][the ][instant ][case, ][the]CGM, the appointing authority, [had ][come ][into ][picture ][after ][the]submission of disagreement [note ][by ][the ][disciplinary ][authority ][and]the CGM, without looking [into ][tJle case ][and ][without ][hearing ][the]petitioner, has come to a [predetermined conclusion ][to ][impose ][major]penalty of 'Dismissa-l' and had [thereafter called ][the ][petitioner ][for]personal appe€rance before him [on ][18.11.2O15 ][which ][was ][later]changed to 19.11.2015 [and ][though ][the ][petitioner ][submitted ][written]submissions followed [by his ][appearance ][on ][19.11.2015 followed ][by]further submissions on [2O.ll.2Ol5, ][the ][appointing ][authority, ][vide]his proceedings dated [Oa.L2.2Ol5, communicated ][through ][the]GM(NW-IID Lr. No.MG/TPT / [DTV ]/ [822 ][dated ][10. ][12.20 ][1 ][5 ][imposed ][the]penalty of dismissal against [the ][petitioner, ][further ][holding ][that ][the]period of suspension is to be treated [as ]"not [on ][dut5/.]

6. It is submitted that the [Appointing ][Authority, ][the ][CGM, ][has]not looked into tlle [evidence ][on ][record properly and ][therefore, ][the]final orders passed by the [CGM/appointing authority lacks ][the ][legal]

sanctity ald suffers from improper consideration of the case of thepetitioner in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Itis submitted that the petitioner has submitted his appeal to theis submitted that the petitioner has submitted his appeal to theAppellate Committee on 71.02.2016 and the Appellate Committee,vide their lettcr t1t.21.O4.2O17, sought more information, such asproof of sale/ deposit/utilisation of cash shown in the MolJ, and thatthe petitioner has submitted the said details through hisvide their lettcr t1t.21.O4.2O17, sought more information, such asproof of sale/ deposit/utilisation of cash shown in the MolJ, and thatthe petitioner has submitted the said details through hisrepresentation d1..24.O4.2OI4, but the Appeliate Committee hasdismissed his appeal vide orders dt.3l.O7 .2oli' withoutconsideration of the same. It is submitted that against the order ofthe Appellate Cornmittee, the peLitioner frled a Review Petition onthe Appellate Cornmittee, the peLitioner frled a Review Petition on7I.12.2017 but the reviewing authority also has not considered thecase of the petitioner properly and has rejected the review petitionwithout any basis vide orders dt.2a.Ol.2Ol9 and hence, the presentwrit petition has been filed challenging tl-e order of removal whichhas merged with the order of Appellate Committee and thereafterwith the order of the reviewing authority.case of the petitioner properly and has rejected the review petitionwithout any basis vide orders dt.2a.Ol.2Ol9 and hence, the presentwrit petition has been filed challenging tl-e order of removal whichhas merged with the order of Appellate Committee and thereafterwith the order of the reviewing authority.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order ofthe CcM/Appointing Authority is liable to be set aside on the soleground of violatio:n of principles of natural justice. It is submittedt}"at though there is a reference to various documents on the basis ofwhich, 19 charges have been framed against the petitioner, no document in support [of ][the ][said ][charges have ][been supplied ][to ][the]petitioner, and in spite of a specifrc [reqr.rest ][by the ][petitioner ][for ][the]same, and such documents [were produced ][only ][during ][the ][enquiry]and the petitioner had no [opportunity ][to ][examine ][the ][said]documents and contradict [the ][same, ][and ][therefore, ][it ][is ][in ][clear]violation of principles [of ][natural ][justice']

8. While reiterating [the ][above submissions, ][the ][learned ][counsel]I-ofthe Petitioneree o owlngocumen S:I-ofthe Petitioneree o owlngocumen S:

(1) Synopsis-cum-written [arguments filed ][on ][2l ]'12 [2023 ]'

(2\ Supplementary [synopsis-cum-written ][arguments ][hled]on28.12.2023, ar,d28.12.2023, ar,d List of citations [Iiled ][on ][12.01.2024.](3)

9. Learned counsel for [the ][petitioner ][submitted ][that ][though]initialty 18 charges [have been framed ][against ][the ][petitioner, ][the ][18m]charge assumes [importance ][as ][it ][mentions ][that ]["there ][is ][a ][likelihood]of incurring a loss [of ][Rs.5789.55 ][lakhs." ][It ][is ][submitted that ][in ][the]parlance of the disciplinary [proceedings ][and the ][service ][law, ][a ][loss]has to be definite [and ][clear ][in ][terms ][of ][the numbers and ][it ][cannot ][be]said to be likelv [(emphasis provided ][by ][this court) ][to ][be ][incurred and]that this demonstrates [the fact that as ][on ][the ][date ][of ][issuance ][of]dated [l}.l2.2ol5, ][there was ][no ][specific ][loss ][to ][the]charge memo bank and tha1. the respondents were also not aware of the defrniteloss that was caused to the bank by the atleged acts of the petitioner.

1O. lt is submil-ted that where no loss has occurred, there cannotbe any charges of misconduct. It is submitted that only when theloss is ascertained and made part of the charge memo, adepartmental enquiry can be held on that charge and an employeecan effectively defend his case. It is submitted that though theEnquiry Officer has held the charges 1 to 14 and 1Z and 1g as notproved and only charges 15 and 16 as partly proved, the t)isciplinaryAuthority, without giving any reason, has held that he did not agreewith the {indings of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the 19ftcharge has been made during the course of ttre enquiry by way ofsupplementary charge dt.22.O9.2014 which was further subjected toa corrigendum dt.16.lO.2OL4 without mentioning the documentaryand oral evidence as the basis for such a charge. It is subtnitted thatno documents we re added to the list of documents to *re chargesheet and no further witnesses were added in support of the saidcharge.

11. lt is submitted that the respondent Barrk neither produced anywritten or oral complaint made by Sri K.Ram prasad in the VigilanceInquiry nor has brought him as prosecution witness to prove thea-llegation that the petitioner has gained any pecuniar5r benefit from him. It is submitted that the [respondent ][management ][cannot shift]the burden of proof to the [accused ][as ][held ][in ][Vaidhganathan]Case1.

12. karned counsel for the [petitioner ][also placed ][relialce ][upon]the [judgment ]of the Honble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Union ][oJ]India Vs. H.C. Gogel Cas& [for ][the proposition ][that ][mere suspicion]carnot be allowed to [take the place ][of ][proof ][in ][domestic ][enquiry.]

13. It is further submitted [that ][the money ][trail ][has ][not ][been ][traced]by the vigilalce inquiry [to ][ascertain ][the ][sources of ][funds ][remitted ][to]the petitioner's sons' [accounts ][and there ][are ][no ][complaints ][either]written or oral, from [Sri ][K.Ramprasad ][nor ][has ][he ][been ][subjected ][to]any enquiry and the [petitioner has ][never ][been ][given any ][opportunity]to submit his explanation [before ][placing ][him under ][suspension ][to]explain the circumstances [under which the ][remittances ][have ][been]made to his sons' accounts [in ][Canada ][and that ][it ][is ][in ][clear ][violation]of principles of [natural ][justice. ][It ][is ][submitted ][that ][it ][is ][after ][the]conclusion of the [domestic ][inquiry that the ][allegation has ][been ][made]and the bank has [also ][not ][summoned ][Sri ][K.Ram Prasad ][as]prosecution witness and that [before ][the ][Disciplinary ][Authority, ][the]petitioner has submitte d [a ][notarized sworn affrdavit ][of ][one ][Sri]

, AIR 1964 SC 364

, AIR 1964 SC 364

Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy confirming that he made thepaJrrnent of sale proceeds payable to the petitioner for sale of hisproperty, to Sri I.i.Ram Prasad for sending the said remittances topetitioner's sons accounts in Canada through Axis Bank as SBI,petitioner's sons accounts in Canada through Axis Bank as SBI,Kurnool, Main Branch, was not the authorised bank to deal inforeign exchange. It is submitted that Sri K.Ram Prasad alsosubmitted a notanzr'd sworn afhdavit dated 07. 10.2O1S explainingthe source of funds for sending remittances to the petitioner,s sonsin Canada through his Axis Bank Account. He also referred to thequestion No.343 a.nswered by P.W. I after going through the releva_ntexhibits, to the effect that he had not come across any t:vidence tothe source of funds for sending remittances to the petitioner,s sonsin Canada through his Axis Bank Account. He also referred to thequestion No.343 a.nswered by P.W. I after going through the releva_ntexhibits, to the effect that he had not come across any t:vidence toprove that the relnittance to petitioner's sons' accounts in Caladawas made at petihoner's insistence. Therefore, according to thewas made at petihoner's insistence. Therefore, according to thelearned counsel for the petitioner, he was not involved in the saidremittancesremittances

14. lt is further submitted that when a new charge No.xtx, is madeduring the course of the domestic enquiry, the Disciplinar,v Authoritywas required to speci$r, the evidence on the basis of which, thecharge is made and afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquentofficer to defend the same through the defence evidence, but, in thiscase, the 19ft charge was raised during the course of the domesticinquiry alleging that certain credit facilities were sanctioned by the petitioner during his tenure at [RBO, ][Kurnool ][to ][one ][Sri ][K.Rama]Prasad and his wife which [has resulted ][in ][remittartces ][to his ][sons']bank accounts in Canada. [The said ][charge ][is ][denied ][by ][the]petitioner by submitting that the [petitioner ][has ][sold one ][of ][his]properties to one Sri Peddireddy [Venkataswamy ][Reddy, ][who ][in turn,]had requested Sri K.Ram [Prasad ][to remit the ][sale consideration to]the petitioner's sons' bank [accounts ][in ][Canada- ][Therefore, ][it ][is]submitted that the said [transaction ][had ][nothing ][to ][do ][with ][the]discharge of his official [duties ][as a ][Branch ][Manager. ][It is ][submitted]that the property tralsactions [had ][happened between the years ][2OO8]and 201O and the [property transaction has ][been mentioned ][in ][the]assets and liabilities [statement ][of ][the ][petitioner from ][the ][year ][2OO9-]2015 and was also submitted [to ][the Bank as ][is ][evident ][from ][the]bank record. It is submitted [that the ][petitioner's ][vendee, Sri]Peddireddy Venkataswamy [Reddy, ][and ][Sri ][K.Ram ][Prasad both]resided in the flats of [the ][same ][apartment ][and ][were ][known to ][each]other and therefore [the ][transaction ][was ][done through ][Sri]K.Ramprasad.

15. t earned counsel for [the petitioner ][further ][submitted ][that ][the]Bank has [initiated ][action against ][the ][petitioner in]respondent transactions [pertaining ][to ][the contents ][of the charge sheet]respect of issued to the petitioner, [also ][against 12 othet ][officers, ][but ][all ][the ][12]

offlcers including those who have conducted the preliminarJiinquiries, per-sarrction surveys into the entitlement of the loans orother transactions, those who recommended the transactions andthose who ultimately approved the transitions were tet-off withsmaller penaltj.es, whereas the petitioner was the only one, who wasinquiries, per-sarrction surveys into the entitlement of the loans orother transactions, those who recommended the transactions andthose who ultimately approved the transitions were tet-off withsmaller penaltj.es, whereas the petitioner was the only one, who wassubjected to the grave penalty of 'Dismissal From service'.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.Bijlani Vs" tlnion oJIndiq. and otherss, for the proposition that in rlisciplinaryproceedings, [q,hi<:h ]are quasi-criminal in nature, there should besome evidence to prove the charge. He also referred to the judgmentof the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in case of united Bank of India Vs.

Bisroanath BhattacharJeea, wherein the Honble Apex Court hasreconsidered the entire issue of the role of the departmentalproceedings and the scope of the Court to interferr_- in suchproceedings under Article 226 of tlre Constitution of India.

17. ffrc learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that thisis a case of no t:vidence and hence deserves interventton of thisCourt. He submitted that the act of Disciplinary Authority inconveying the disa-greement note dt.24.O7.2OLS is contrary' to the iaw 3 Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2OO4 dt.OS.O4.2006

a Civil Appeal No.8258 of 2O09 dated 31.01.2022

laid down by the Apex Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][PunJob ][National Bank]and others Vs. Str. Kuni Behari [Misras ][and ][that ][it ][was ][not ][based]on any evidence adduced [during ][the ][course ][of ][enquiry.]

18. Wittrout [prejudice ]to [the ][above ][contentions, on ][the ][merits of]the dismissal order, the [learned counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner ][submitted]that the petitioner is [entitted ][to ][payment ][of ][gratuity ][even ][if ][he ][is]dismissed-from service. [In ][support ][of ][his ]['contentions, ][he ][placed]relian-e uporr--th ludgnrents [-e ][of-ths ][Ilcin'ble ][tpex-eourtirr ][case ][-df]Jasuant Singh Gill [Vs. ][M/5. ][Bharat ][Cooking ][Coal ][Ltd' ][& ][Ors6]and in case of union [Bank ][Of ][Indla ][Vs. ][C.G. ][Aiag ][Babu7, ][wherein]it was categorically [held ][that ][the gratuity ][cannot ][be ][denied ][even to]an employee who [is ][terminated ][from ][service ][until ][the ][termination ][is]for one of the reasons [available ][under ][Sub-section 6(b)(ii) ][of ][the]Act. It is [submitted ][that ][under ][Sub-Sections ][5 ][and ][6 ][of]Gratuity Section 4 of the [Payment ][of the ][Gratuity ][Act, ][1972, ][forfeiitre ][of]gratuity is not automatic [on dismissal ][from ][service; ][but ][it ][is ][subject]to the [provisions ]of [the ][Sub-sections ][thereunder' ][Therefore, ][he]prayed that the authorities [may ][be ][directed to reconsider ][the ][appeal]of the petitioner, and [relied ][upon ][the judgment ][of the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court in [the ][case ][of ][Lucknout ][Kshethreega Gramin ][Bank]

6 C.A.No.477O of 2006 dt.10. 1 1.2006

7 Civil Appeal No.8251 of2018 dated 14.08.2Oi8

Vs. Rajendra Singha in support of his above contentions. He thusprayed for settrng aside of the termination order with allconsequential ber:Lehts.prayed for settrng aside of the termination order with allconsequential ber:Lehts.

19. ffre learnecl Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentBank, however supported the impugned orders and submitted thatreasonable opporr-unity has been given to the petitioner during thecourse of disciplinary proceedings and merely because the EnquiryOfhcer has given a finding that most of the charges are not proved,the Disciplinary i\uthorit5r is not bound by the same arrd he candiffer from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and procet:d with thematter in accordance with law. In support of his contentions thatreasonable opportunit5r was given to the petitioner, lhe learnedcounsel for the bank has strenuously taken this Court tirough a1lthe documents fil:d along with the counter afhdarrit. He also placedreliance upon the lollowing judgments in support of his contentions.

ll Kerala Soloent Ertra.ctions Ltd Vs. A.tlnnikrishnan andanothereanothere

2) Disctplinary Authortty-cum-Reglonal Manager and otlrcrsVs. Nikunja Birrori Patno;iktoVs. Nikunja Birrori Patno;ikto 8 LAWS (SC)-2013-7- 126

, (2006)13 SCC 619

3l tlnion of India Vs. [Parma ][No,ndal ][t]

4) State Bank oJ Indtd [Vs. ][A.G.D. Reddlgl2]

As regards the orders of [dismissal ][from ][service ][being ][passed ][by ][the]CGM/ the appellate authority, [he ][submitted ][that ][since ][the]disciplinary/ appointing [authority ][has ][differed ][with ][the ][frndings ][of]the enquiry officer, [he ][could not ][have passed ][the final ][orders ][in ][this]case as per Rules and [therefore, ][the ][matter was referred ][to ][his]officer [who also ][happened ][to ][be ][the ][appointing authority,]superior and after consideration [of ][all ][the material ][on ][record and after ][giving]an opportunity of [personal hearing ][to ][the ][petitioner, the ][appointing]had [passed ][the ][order of ][dismissal from ][service ][and ][hence ][it]authority needs no interference.

2O. Having [regard ][to ][the rival ][contentions ][and the ][material ][on]record, tl.is Court [finds ][tl.at ][the ][following ][points arise ][in ][this ][Writ]Petition for adjudication.

(1) Whether tl.e authorit5r, [who ][issued ][the ][charge ][memo,]

conducted the enquiry [and ][heard ][the ][delinquent ][employee,]

ro (1996) 9 SCC 69

11 (1989) 2 SCC 177t2 2023 SCC online SC 1064

alone should pass ttre final order in the disciplinaryproceedings.?proceedings.?

(2) Whether the Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary authoritywas- on the basis of any evidence recorded during the course ofenquiry?

(3) Whether any charges can be framed without the assessment ofloss?loss?

(4) Whether charge No.XIX can be framed without giving the basisfor such a charge and without the list of documents andwitnesses for such charge?for such a charge and without the list of documents andwitnesses for such charge?

{5) [Whether ][t}ie ][re ][is violation ]of principles of natural [justice?]

(6) Whether tht: petitioner was solely responsible for the acts ofalleged misconduct?alleged misconduct?

(7) What is the relief the petitioner is entitled to?

21. ns regards Point No.l, this Court frnds that in this case, theDisciplinary Authority has issued the charge memo, appointed theenquiry offrcer, but differed with the enquiry report ald sirbmitted aDisagreement Note. It is the cardinal principle and settled law thatthe offrcer who has issued the charge sheet and heard the petitioner,should alone pass the final order as he would be the person who isaware of all the facts and therefore, would be abie to take aninformed and vre1l considered decision. He would be ab1e. to reflect

the reasons for coming [to ][any ][conclusion ][in ][his order ][on ][the ][basis ][of]the material on record. [If ][the ][said task is entrusted ][to ][another ][offlcer]who is not aware of the [facts ][of the ][case ][ald ][is only partly ][involved]in the [judicial ][process, ]his [decision ][may ][be ][fractured ][and]inconsistent with the facts [of ][the ][case. ][However, ][where ][the]Disciplinary Authority [differs ][from the ][enquiry ][ofhcer ][and ][issues ][a]Disagreement Note, it would [not ][be ][either ][proper ][or ][within ][his]powers to pass final orders [without ][any prejudice ][or ][bias. Therefore,]in such circumstances, [it is ][incumbent ][upon ][the ][Disciplinary]Authority to refer the [matter ][to ][other ][competent authorit5r ][to ][pass]orders. In such circumstances, [it ][wouid ][become ][necessary ][that ][the]competent authority [permits ][the delinquent ][employee ][to ][personally]appear and submit [his ][explanation. ][This ][is ][only ][to ][ensure ][that ][all]the facts and circumstances [of ][the ][case ][are made ][known ][to ][the]competent authority [to ][pass ][an ][order. ][Therefore, ][the ][contention ][of]the petitioner that the [Disciplinary Authority ][who issued ][the ][charge]memo and conducted [enquiry ][ought to ][have ][passed ][the order, is ][not]sustainable. Therefore, [Point ][No. ][1 ][is ][answered ][against ][the ][petitioner.]

22. es regards Point [No.2, ][this ][Court ][frnds ][that ][against ][the]enquiry report, the [Disciplinary ][Authority ][has issued a Disagreement]Note and having [gone ][through the ][Disagreement Note, ][it ][is ][seen ][that]the Disciplinary Authority [is ][referring ][to ][the ][material ][referred ][to ][in]

the charge memo for coming to the conclusion that the chargesagainst the peti:ioner are proved. His hndings or obsewationsagainst the findings of the enquiry officer are not on the trasis of anyagainst the peti:ioner are proved. His hndings or obsewationsagainst the findings of the enquiry officer are not on the trasis of anyevidence prodllced during the course of enquiry or the witnessesexamined during ttre course of enquiry. The documents or witnessesreferred to in the charge memo are only for coming to a pima facieopinion for framing of the charges against the delinquent employee,but the hndings of the enquiry offrcer are on the basis of thewitnesses and lhe documents examined during the course ofreferred to in the charge memo are only for coming to a pima facieopinion for framing of the charges against the delinquent employee,but the hndings of the enquiry offrcer are on the basis of thewitnesses and lhe documents examined during the course ofenquiry. lf the Dis;ciplinary Authority were to differ with the hndingsof the enquiry oilicer, he would have to base the same on theof the enquiry oilicer, he would have to base the same on theevidence recorded during the course of enquiry and not on the basisof preliminar5r information used for framing of charges against theemployee. The leuLrned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bankhas not been able to bring on record any independen-t evidencesupporting the stand of the Disciplinary Authority on hisDisagreement Note. Therefore, Point No.2 is answered in favour ofthe petitioner. For coming to this conclusion, this Court reiies uponthe observations of the Honble Apex Court in the following case:has not been able to bring on record any independen-t evidencesupporting the stand of the Disciplinary Authority on hisDisagreement Note. Therefore, Point No.2 is answered in favour ofthe petitioner. For coming to this conclusion, this Court reiies uponthe observations of the Honble Apex Court in the following case:

23. ln the [case ][of ][State of Andhra ][Pradesh ][and others ][Vs' Chitra]

Venkata *ors, it [was ][held ][that]

.The Court is concerned to detennine uhether the enquiry isheld bg an authDitA [competent ][in ][ttnt ][behalf and ][according ][to ][tte]procedure prescibed. in that [behatJ and whether the ][rules ][oJ ][nQturql]justice are not uiolated. Second, [n:here there ][is ][some euidence ][ttlhich]tlle outhoritg entn8ted [with ][the ][dutV ][to ][Lold ][tlrc enquiry ][tws ][accepted]and tuhich euidence [mag ][reasonablg ][support the ][conclusion ][tLnt ][the]delirlquerut olficer [is guiltg ][of the ][chorge, ][it is ][not ][the ][function of ][the]High Court to reuieu [the ][eutdence ][and to ][affiue ][at ][an ][independ'ent]fiiLding [on ][tlrc ][euidence- ][The ][Htgh ][eourt ][-rug ][irterfere'uhere ][the]depantmental autlaities [haue ][held the ][proceedings ][against ][the]delinquent in a [mrtnner inconsistent ][uith ][the ][tules ][of ][naturaL ][justice ][or]in uiokttion of the statutory [rules ][prescribing the ][mode ][of ][enquiry ][or]uhere tlle auttnities [lnue ][disabled ][ttem'selues ]from [reaching ][a ][fair]decision bg some [corLsideralions ][extraneous ][to ][the ][euid'ence ][and ][th.e]meits of the ccrse or [bg ][alloutng ][tfLemselues ][to ][be ][inJtuenced ][bg]irrelevant ansiderations [or ][uthere ][the ][conclusion on ][the ][uery ][face of ][it]is so tttholly arbitrary [and- ][capicious that ][no ][reasonable ][person could]euerhqueotTiuedatttmtconclusion.Thedepartmentalauthoitiesare'if the erquiry is [othenuise ][propertg lrcld, ][the ][sole ][judges ][oJ ][facts ][and ][if]tLrcre is some legal [euidence on ][tuhich ][tteir ]findings [can ][be ][based' the]adeqtacg or reliobilitg [of that ][euidence ][is ][not ][a ][malter ][ttthich ][can ][be]pennitted ta be [canuassed before ][the High Court ][in ][a ][proceeding ][for ][a]urit under Article [226."]held bg an authDitA [competent ][in ][ttnt ][behalf and ][according ][to ][tte]procedure prescibed. in that [behatJ and whether the ][rules ][oJ ][nQturql]justice are not uiolated. Second, [n:here there ][is ][some euidence ][ttlhich]tlle outhoritg entn8ted [with ][the ][dutV ][to ][Lold ][tlrc enquiry ][tws ][accepted]and tuhich euidence [mag ][reasonablg ][support the ][conclusion ][tLnt ][the]delirlquerut olficer [is guiltg ][of the ][chorge, ][it is ][not ][the ][function of ][the]High Court to reuieu [the ][eutdence ][and to ][affiue ][at ][an ][independ'ent]fiiLding [on ][tlrc ][euidence- ][The ][Htgh ][eourt ][-rug ][irterfere'uhere ][the]depantmental autlaities [haue ][held the ][proceedings ][against ][the]delinquent in a [mrtnner inconsistent ][uith ][the ][tules ][of ][naturaL ][justice ][or]in uiokttion of the statutory [rules ][prescribing the ][mode ][of ][enquiry ][or]uhere tlle auttnities [lnue ][disabled ][ttem'selues ]from [reaching ][a ][fair]decision bg some [corLsideralions ][extraneous ][to ][the ][euid'ence ][and ][th.e]meits of the ccrse or [bg ][alloutng ][tfLemselues ][to ][be ][inJtuenced ][bg]irrelevant ansiderations [or ][uthere ][the ][conclusion on ][the ][uery ][face of ][it]is so tttholly arbitrary [and- ][capicious that ][no ][reasonable ][person could]euerhqueotTiuedatttmtconclusion.Thedepartmentalauthoitiesare'if the erquiry is [othenuise ][propertg lrcld, ][the ][sole ][judges ][oJ ][facts ][and ][if]tLrcre is some legal [euidence on ][tuhich ][tteir ]findings [can ][be ][based' the]adeqtacg or reliobilitg [of that ][euidence ][is ][not ][a ][malter ][ttthich ][can ][be]pennitted ta be [canuassed before ][the High Court ][in ][a ][proceeding ][for ][a]urit under Article [226."]

24. As regards [Point No'3, ][this ][Court ][finds ][that ][Charge ][No ][XVIII]in this case is that [the ][bank is likely ][to ][incur ][loss ][on account ][of the]atleged act of [misconduct by ][the ][petitioner' ][Even ][later' ][in the counter]affrdavit frled by the [respondents before ][this ][Court, ][they have ][not]13 (1975) 2 SCC 557

been able to a.ssess the loss caused to the bank, leave alone theassessment at the time of issuance of the charge memo, charge sheetor even the final orders of termination from service. Without arrivingat arty conclusion about the quantum of loss which was caused dueto the alleged acrs of misconduct by the petitioner, the gravit5z oror even the final orders of termination from service. Without arrivingat arty conclusion about the quantum of loss which was caused dueto the alleged acrs of misconduct by the petitioner, the gravit5z orotherwise of the c,ffence could not be gauged and the severity of thepunishment to lte imposed cannot be decided. If the loss isquantified, the respondent bank would be in a position to not onlyquantified, the respondent bank would be in a position to not onlyrecover the loss so incurred arid quantify the compensation to berecovered from the petitioner, but also decide on the severity of thepunishment to br: imposed. Therefore, point No.3 is answered infavour of the petitioner.favour of the petitioner.

25. tn the case of Union of India Vs. H.C. coet (2 supra), it wsheld that "Though ue futlA oppreciate the anxietg oJ the appeltant to root outconuption -front public serui.ce, ule cannot ignore the fact that inconuption -front public serui.ce, ule cannot ignore the fact that incorrytng out tlp sqid purpose, mere suspicion should. not be alloued. totake the place of prooJ euen in domesti.c enqiies. It mag be thnt thetecluical rule:: uthich gouern criminal trials in courts mau nottake the place of prooJ euen in domesti.c enqiies. It mag be thnt thetecluical rule:: uthich gouern criminal trials in courts mau notnecessailg apptA to disciptinary proceedings, but neuerttrcless, thepinctple that t,. punishing the guittg scrupulous care must be taken topinctple that t,. punishing the guittg scrupulous care must be taken tosee that tle innocent are not punisled, applies as much to regularciminql trtals as to disciplinary enquiies heLd. und.er the statutoryrules."ciminql trtals as to disciplinary enquiies heLd. und.er the statutoryrules."

26. n" regards Point [No.4, ][this ][Court ][finds that ][Charge No.XIX ][was]issued during the course of [the ][enquiry ][and by ][way ][of ][issuing ][a]supplementary charge sheet [and ][it ][did ][not ][contain ][the ][list ][of]witnesses or documents, on [the ][basis ][of ][which ][such ][a ][charge ][is]issued. As observed by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][a ][catena of]cases, a charge has to [be ][on ][tJle ][basis ][of ][the ][facts ][and ][circumstances]of the case and the [documents ][or ][evidence ][relied ][upon ][by ][the]management for framing [such a ][charge ][have ][to ][be made ][known ][to]the delinquent employee [who ][should also ][be ][supplied ][with ][such]documents to enable the [delinquent ][employee ][to ][go ][through ][the]same to submit his or [her ][defence. These ][are settled principles of]natural [justice ]which [have ][to ][be ][followed ][not ][only ][in ][judicial but ][also]in quasi-judicial [proceedings. ][It is ][an ][admitted ][fact ][that ][the]disciplinary [proceedings ][are ][quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal ][and]therefore, principles of [natural justice ][have ][to ][be ][followed ][and]therefore, Question [No.4 ][is ][answered ][in ][favour ][of the ][petitioner']

27. furttrel as [regards ][merits ][of ][the ][case, ][it ][is an ][admitted ][fact]that there was transfer [of some ][money ][from ][one ][of ][the ][borrowers ][i'e',]Sri K.Ram Prasad to [the bank ][accounts ][of ][the ][petitioner's ][sons ][in]Canada. The respondents, [therefore, ][ought ][to ][have required ][the]petitioner to submit his [explana[ion ][for t]re ][same ][and ][should ][have]

brought the said person as a witness and examined him as to thesource of the fund and also the circumstances under which t.Ilesource of the fund and also the circumstances under which t.Iletransfer has ber:n made. The petitioner has relied upon thenotarised affudavi: of one Sri Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy whonotarised affudavi: of one Sri Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy whosubmitted that due to sale of property to him and sinr:e both SriPeddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy and the borrower lived in the sameapartment, they were known to each other and that the transactionhas been done through Sri K.Ram Prasad and the said contentionhas not been disproved by the respondent Bank. The respondentsought to have brought the said person on record and tried to elicitthe truth. Furth:r, though several allegations have been madehas been done through Sri K.Ram Prasad and the said contentionhas not been disproved by the respondent Bank. The respondentsought to have brought the said person on record and tried to elicitthe truth. Furth:r, though several allegations have been madeagainst the petitioner, unless until, such misconduct has been foundto have caused lcss to the balk in any way, the respondent Bankcould not have initiated action against the petitioner. Theto have caused lcss to the balk in any way, the respondent Bankcould not have initiated action against the petitioner. Therespondent has not computed the loss caused by the alleged acts ofmisconduct bv l.he petitioner and therefore, the charges areapparently vague and could not be substantiated with any evidencearrd the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to countersuch allegations. ltor coming to this conclusion, this Court relies onthe following judgments:the following judgments:

28. l" the case of State [Bank ][of ][Bikaner ][and ][Jaipur Vs. ][Nemi]

Chand Nalwaysra, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][observed ][that:]

u If tte enquiry has been fairfu and properlg heW and thefindings [are ][based ][on ][euidence, ][the ][qtestion ][of ][arlequacV ][of ][tlrc]evtderrce or th.e reliable nature ol [tLE euiderrce ][uill ][not ][be ][groun.ds ]forinterfering utith tte firulings [in ][departmentat ][enquiies. ][Therefore,]courts tutll not intetere uith findings [of ]fact [remrded ][in ][departmental]enquiries, except uhere [such ]findings [qre based ][on ][no ][euidence ][or]utrcre tleg are clearly [peruerse- ][TLrc ][test ][to ]find [out ][peruersi$ ][is ][to]see Lohether a tibunal [acting reasonably ][could' haue ][arriued ][at ][such]conclusion or firding, [on ][thb ][iiatertal ][oiiecord." ][']

29. ll the case of J. [Venkatamani ][Vs. ][Principal ][Secretary,]Vigilance iv Hyderabad [and othersls, ][it ][was held ][that]

"15. Coming to the case on [hand ]- [As ][obserued ][in ][the ][preceding]paragraphs, this Court ftnds a [lot ]of [contradictions ][in ][tte ][euidence ][of]P.Ws.l and 2, tthose [euidence ][uJas stronglA ][relied ][upon ][bg ][the]Tibunal for Disciplinary [Proceedings ]for [arriuing ][at ][the ][conclusian's. ][In]the considered. opinion of [this ][Court, ][the ][Tibunal ]for [Disciplinory]Proceedings thoroughly faiLed [in ][appreciating ][the ][eutdence ][auqilable]on record. from [proper perspectiue ][and ][cqme to ][tlrc ][conclusions ][uittrout]there being ang foundation [and ][basi.s. While ][dealing ][uith ][the career]ond future of an indiuidual, tte [Inqtiing anl ][Disciplinary Authorities]are reqrired to conduct the [proceedings ][with ][care' ][caution ][antd]ciratmspection and cannot [jump ][into ][conclusions ][on ][the ][ba'sis ][of]os atmptio ns and [p ][re ][sumPtions. ]["]

3O. In the case of Moni [Shankar ][Vs. ][Union ][of ][India ][and]

anotherl6, it was held [that]

'77. T\e departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one.Althougll the prouisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in thesaid proceedlng, pinciples of natural justice are required to beAlthougll the prouisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in thesaid proceedlng, pinciples of natural justice are required to becomptied witlr- Ttte courts exercising pouter of judicictl reuieut areentitled to cc.nsider a-s to ulrctter uhile inferring commission ofmisconduct on the part of a delinquent officer releuant piece ofeutdence h.as been taken into consideration and ireleuant facts hauebeen exchtded tterefrom- Inferenre on facts must be bo^sed onentitled to cc.nsider a-s to ulrctter uhile inferring commission ofmisconduct on the part of a delinquent officer releuant piece ofeutdence h.as been taken into consideration and ireleuant facts hauebeen exchtded tterefrom- Inferenre on facts must be bo^sed onevidence uthich meet tlB reqlirements of legal princtples. The Tribunaluas, th11s, entitled to affiue at its olxn conclusion on tle premise thatuas, th11s, entitled to affiue at its olxn conclusion on tle premise thatth.e eui.dence adduced bg th.e Department, euen if it is taken on i,ts faceualue to be cotrect in its enttretA, meet th.e reqttirements of burden ofproof, namelg, preponderance of probabilitg. If on such euidences, theualue to be cotrect in its enttretA, meet th.e reqttirements of burden ofproof, namelg, preponderance of probabilitg. If on such euidences, thetest of thez doctine of proportionalitg has tot been satisfi.e-d, theTribunal uas urithin its domain to interfere. We must place on recordthat the doctine of unreasonableness is giuing uaA to tlLe doctine ofproportionalitU. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker lalproportionalitU. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker lalSiuastaua [(2006) 3 SCC 276 : 2006 SCC OAg 521] and CoimbatoreDistict Central Coop. Bank u. Emplogees AsstL [(2OO7) 4 SCC 669 :(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 681 )."Distict Central Coop. Bank u. Emplogees AsstL [(2OO7) 4 SCC 669 :(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 681 )."

31. In the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others (3

supra), it was helcl that

'25. It is tnte that the jurisdiction of th_e court in judicial reviewis limited. Disdplinary proceedings, lauteuer, being quasi-criminal innature, there should. be some euidence to proue tlu clwrge. Althoughth.e charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to beproved like [q ]criminal tial i.e. begond all reasonable doub[ tue cannotlose sight of tle fact that tlte enquiry offrcer perJorm-s a qtasi-judiciatfunLtion [who upon ]analgsing the d.ocuments must ariue at aanclusion thot there had been a preponderance of probability to prouethe charges ort the ba.sis of mateials on record.. While d.oing so, lucannot take inlo ansideration ang ineleudnt fact. He cannot refuse to consider the releuont facts. [He ][cannot ][shifi ][tte ][burden of ][proof' ][He]ca at reject the [releuant ][testimonA ][of ][th.e ][uitnesses ][onlg ][on the ][basis]of surrnises and conjecfitres. [He ][cantat ][enquire ][into tfrc ][a ][egdtiotts]tuith uhich the delinqnnt [olficer ][had. ][not ][been ][charged ][ruitlt-"]ca at reject the [releuant ][testimonA ][of ][th.e ][uitnesses ][onlg ][on the ][basis]of surrnises and conjecfitres. [He ][cantat ][enquire ][into tfrc ][a ][egdtiotts]tuith uhich the delinqnnt [olficer ][had. ][not ][been ][charged ][ruitlt-"]

32. ln the case of [K.sitararn ][Vs- ][The ][Vice ][Chancellor, ][S'V']University, Tirupati and [anotherlT, ][it ][was ][held that:]

"A cotlclusion [euen ][of ][the disciptinary ][autlaritA as ][to ][tLrc e'uidence]considered would. be [uitiated ][if ][it ][is ][one uthich ][tttould ][be ][orriued ][at ][bA]no i€aionabtb"itdison [or ][on ][io ][etiilbnce, ][ii ][irrati6nal ][oi ][ba'sed ][on]gonj4ture5. s4rmrses or -suspigiotts-ui-Qe [Uniqt ][of ][a!1o. [u9,]G.Ganogutham [(3) ][AIR ][1997 ][SC ][3387; ][R ][S.Saini ][vs' ][State of Punjab]& Ors. (4) 1999 [(5) Scale ][427.']

33. fn the case of [S.Nanjuudeswar ][Vs. ][State ][of ][Mysorel8, ][the]Karnataka High [Court held ][as ][under:]

"ht this connection, I [uould ][rekr ][to ][a ][decision ][of ][the Bombag high]Court reported in [State ][of Bombau ][Vs. Gaianan Mahadeu ][Badleu' ][In]thi.s co-se, Chief [Justice ][Ctnglo" sitting ][tttith ][Mr' ][Justtce ][Dkit ][hetd ][that]the State should. [not countenaftce ][a ][departmental enquiry ][in ][rthich]oction i,s [proposed to ][be ][taken ogdirlst ][the seruant ][uhere ][a ][uitness ][is]produced ontg for [being cross-examined ][by ][tle ][seruant ][uithout ][the]seruant betng [giuen ][on ][oPportunitg ][of teaing ][uhat ][evidence ][the]rritness is [going ][to ]@ue. [Their Inrdships ]rurthet [held ][thot ][euen]assuming tat a statenent [of ][srtch ][a ][r;uitness ][is furnished ][to ][the]seruant, it is a [sound ][ntle ][tlnt ][courts ][of ][lanD ][stauld follottt and ][ttthich]euen domestic tibunals [should ]follottt [that all ][evidence ][must ][be ][giuen]in tlrc presertre of [an ][accused ][person ][aind ][in ][the ][preserrce oJ ][tle]

18 (1959) O1 KAR CK 0003

person aga -']ct [tuham actton ][is ][proposed to be ][taken. "ft ][is ][one ][thing",]their l,ord^ships obserued, 'to 'rto,ke a stdtemetlt behind the back of a-']ct [tuham actton ][is ][proposed to be ][taken. "ft ][is ][one ][thing",]their l,ord^ships obserued, 'to 'rto,ke a stdtemetlt behind the back of aperson. ancl it is entirelg a different thing to make a statement in thepresence of a person against uhom gou are going to make seriouscharges."charges."

I am irt full altreement uith the uieut expressed bg tl.Leir Lordships ofthe Bombag High Court in the said case. In mg opinion, it tuould makea great dilference if tE statement of tlle uritness concerned is taken inthe presence of the tribunal and in tte presence of the person chnrged.rather than to Faue it behind the back of the sdid persotl I thereforehold thnt the prtnciples oJ natural justice also required thal suchstatements should be taken in tlle presence of the persots cLnrgedand, as I hnue alreadg indicated" Rule 245 oJ the Generd circularsand StancLing Orders also makes a provision to that effect- Thiscontentton of the petittoner must therefore succeed."

34. tn the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.V.perumaland othersle, it was held that

"The Tibunal seents to be under the impression thqt the enquiryofficer/ disciplitary auttoritA is bound to suppty each and. euerydo{alment that mag be asked for bg the delinquent Offi.cer/ emplogee.It is urong thtzre. Their dutg is onlg to supplg releuant docuntentsand not each and euery dodtment asked for bg the deliruTtentofficer/ emplogee. In this case the respondent had asked, for certatnIt is urong thtzre. Their dutg is onlg to supplg releuant docuntentsand not each and euery dodtment asked for bg the deliruTtentofficer/ emplogee. In this case the respondent had asked, for certatndocuments- The Registrar to wtnm the requ.est utas mad.e calledupon him to spectfg the releuance of each and euery doctment askedfor [bg ][him. ][It ][i;; not brought ]to our notice that fiLe respondent did so.upon him to spectfg the releuance of each and euery doctment askedfor [bg ][him. ][It ][i;; not brought ]to our notice that fiLe respondent did so.The Tribuial t()o lus not gone into the qtestion nor has it expressedang opinion uhetlzr th.e documents asked for utere indeed releuantand ushether theit rcn-supplg l,cs prejudiced the respondent case.The test to be applied in this belulf flo's been set out bV this CoLLtt inang opinion uhetlzr th.e documents asked for utere indeed releuantand ushether theit rcn-supplg l,cs prejudiced the respondent case.The test to be applied in this belulf flo's been set out bV this CoLLtt in gate Bank of Patiala u. S.K.Sharma [1996 (3) SCAIts 202]. k wasthe d tA oJ th.e respond.ent to [point ]out [hotu ][each ][and ][euery]doanment raqs releuant to the ctnrges or to [th.e ][enquiry ][being ][lw\d]against him and uJhether and lnu their [non-supplg ][lns ][prejudiced]his case. Equallg it is the dutg of the [Tribunal ][to ][record a ]fin-dingLuhefter anA releuant documents u)ere [not supplied ][and ][uhether]such non-s-Lpplg has [prejudiced ttrc ][d.efendant's ][case. ][Since ][thLs ][has]not been don-e tte Tibunol in this matter [it ][has ][to ][go ][back ]for [a]relrcaing."

35.. es reg€.rds Point No.S, it is [noticed ][ttrat initially, ][a ][charge]to the [petitioner ][with ][18 ]me!19 wa! ilsqged ,charges [and during ][the]course of the departmental [enquiry, ][19h ][charge ][was ][added ][and ][it]was also enquired into. [However, ][when ][the petitioner ][has ][asked for]relevant documents on the [basis of ][which ][the ][said ][charge ][has ][been]framed against him, no such [documents ][have been ][furnished to ][the]petitioner and the sarne is in [clear ][violation ][of the ][principles ][of]natural justice. The [petitioner ][should ][have been given ][an]opportunity to go through [the ][documents ][arld ][make ][his ][own]submissions about the [relevance ][and ][admissibility ][of ][such]documents. For coming to [this ][conclusion, ][this ][Court ][relies ][on ][the]rationale laid down in [the ][following ][case-]

36. tn the case of State [of ][Andhra ][Pradesh ][and others Vs. ][S.]Sree Rama Rao2o, it [was ][held ][that]

20 1963 SCC Onl-ine SC 6: AIR 1963 SC i723

"The Hbh Court maA undoubtedlg interfere uhere the deparlmentalauthoities tu:ve held the proceedings against the delinquett in aauthoities tu:ve held the proceedings against the delinquett in amanner inan^sistent with the rules of nahtral justice or in ublation ofthe stohttory rules prescibing tlle mode of enquiry or where theauthorities haue disabled tlemselves from reachtng a fair decision bgsome consi-d.erations extrdneous to the euidetrce and the meits of thecase or by allotuing themselues to be inJluenced bg ineleuantthe stohttory rules prescibing tlle mode of enquiry or where theauthorities haue disabled tlemselves from reachtng a fair decision bgsome consi-d.erations extrdneous to the euidetrce and the meits of thecase or by allotuing themselues to be inJluenced bg ineleuantconsiderations or ullere the conclusion on tfle uery fqce of it is sottlhollg arbitrory and capicious that no reasorutble person could euerhaue arriued ot thot conclusion, or on similar ground-s."ttlhollg arbitrory and capicious that no reasorutble person could euerhaue arriued ot thot conclusion, or on similar ground-s."

37. es regards Point No.6, it is noticed that along with thepetitioner, 12 othr:r officials of the bank have also been issued chargememos arld enquiry was conducted and the punishment imposed onthe petitioner is quite disproportionate as compared to thepunishment imposed on other employees. Even if the petitioner hasnot questioned the findings of the enquiry officer w-ith regard to thecharges which arr: held as partly proved or proved, the punishmentimposed would b(: excessive, particularly when it is compared withthe punishment imposed by the respondent bank on othr:r ofhcials.The Hon'ble Courts have tirne and again held that the punishmenthas to be commensurate with the severit5r of the offence ald has tobe uniform in respect of all the employees who are involved in thesame or similar misconduct. Though the petitioner has raised aspecifrc ground in this Writ Petition about the discrimination againsthim in awa-rding the pr:nishment as compared to other employees, the respondents have not been able to rebut the same with [any]evidence to the contrary except to state that the [petitioner ][was]involved in the said transactions and it required [strictest]punishment and therefore they were [justified ]in imposing [the]punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, this Court [is]inclined to hold that since the [petitioner ]could [not be ][solely]responsible for the acts of alleged [misconduct, ][the ][punishment ][of]dismissal from service is excessive [as ][compared ][to ][the ][misconducts]which have been held to be [proved by the ][enquiry ][officer]

38. As regard Point No.7, this [Court ][has already ][held ][that ][the only]charge which has been held to [be ][proved ][by ][the enquiry ][ofhcer ][as]well as the Disciplinary Authority is [not ][maintainable as ][it ][did ][not]contain the list of documents [and ][witnesses ][on the ][basis of ][which]such a charge has been framed. [Therefore, ][the ][impugned ][order ][of]punishment is set aside and the [petitioner ][is ][directed ][to ][be]reinstated into service with liberty [to ][the ][respondent ][bank ][to ][re-]initiate the proceedings in [respect ][of ][Charge No.XIX ][in ][accordance]with the settled principles of [law and ][as regards ][the ][charges ][which]have been held as [proved ][by ][the ][enquiry officer, the respondents ][are]at liberty to impose [punishment ][commensurate ][with ][the ][alleged acts]of misconduct and also to [impose ][a ][lesser ][punishment ][thal ][the]punishment of dismissal from service. [As ][regards ][the entitlement ][of]

the petitioner for back wages for the period between termination andreinstatement into service conseqrrent to this order, the respondentsare directed to take a decision on the same after conclusion of theproceedings, if an.y, on Charge No.XIX. Further, as regards the claimof the petitioner fcrr payment of gratuity, irrespective of the pendenryof the proceedings/punishment against the petitioner, this Courthnds that the leierned counsel for the petitioner relied upon thefollowing [judgments:]

39. In the case of Balbir Kaur and another Vs. Steel Authority ofIndia Ltd., and others2r, the Honlcle Supreme Court held as under:

"As regards the prouisions oJ the Pagment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (asamend.ed from time to time) it is no longer in the realm of chrtitll buta statutory ight prouided. in fauour of the emplogee. Section 4 c,f theAct is of some significance and as such the same is set out hereinbelow:

4. Pagment of gratuitg. (1) Gratuitg shall be payable to an empiogeeon the termitation of his emplogment afier he hl.s rend.eredcontinuous serryice for not less than fi,ue gears, -continuous serryice for not less than fi,ue gears, - (a) on his sup(,.rqnnudtion" or (b) on his retirement or resignatiory or(c) on his deatl.. or disablement due to accid.ent or disease; Proutded that the completion of contiruous service of jiue gears shallnot be necessary where tle termination of the enploAment oJ dngemplogee is due to death or disablement."

21 Appeal (Civil) Nos. i 1881 and I 1882 of 1996 dt.O5.O5.2000

JJ

4O. In the case of Urion Bank of India and others Vs. C.G. Ajay Babu and another (7 supra), it was held that "20. In tLrc [present ]case, there is [no conutction ]of the [respondent ]fortle misconduct tuhich according to tte Bank is an offetrce inuoluingmoral htrpitude. Hence, there is [no ]iustification for [the ]forfeiture [of]gratuitV on the ground. stated in tle order dqted 20.04.2004 thnt [the]"misconduct proued against Aou amounts to acts inuoluing [moral]turpitude"- At tle risk of redundancg, u)e maq state that [the]requirem.ent of the sidtute is not [th.e ][proof ]of [misconduct ]of [acts]inuoluing moral..turpitude b.tt tLte.@.ct$ stauld constitute an [offence]inuoluing moral turpitude and such offence stnuld be [dulg]established in a court oJ lnu."

4L. tn the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. M/s. Bharat [Cokiug]Coal Ltd., and others (6 supra), it [was held ]that "A stahttory right accrued, thus, [cannot ][be ][impaired ][by ][reason ][of a]rule uhich does rtot luue tle force [of q ][stafitte. ][It ][uill ][bear ][repetition ][to]state that the Rules fmmed bg Respondent [No. ][7 ][or ][its ][hatding]companA are not stdtutory in nature. [The ][Rules ][in ][anA ][euent ][do ][not]prouide for uithlnlding of retial benefrts or [gratuitA.]

TLte Act prouides for a closelg [neat ][sctrcme ][prouiding ]for [pagment ][of]gratuitg. It is a comptete code containing detailed [prouisions ][coueing]tle essential [proui.sions ]of [a scleme ]for [a ][gratuitA. ][It ][rnt ][onlg ][creates ][a]ight to pagmefi of gratuitV but also [lags doutn ][the prtnciples ]forqtantification th.ereoJ as also the conditions on ulhich [trc ][mag ][be]denied ttrcrefrom- As [noticed ][lereinbefore, ][sub-section (6) ][of ]4 of the Act antains a non- obstante clause [vis:-uis ][sub-section ][(1)]thereof. As bg reason th.ereoJ an [accrued ][or ][uested ][ight ][is ][sought ][to]be tdken anaqA, the anditiotts [laid ][doutn thereunder must ][be ]fulfilled-Th.e prouisiors contained tlrcrein musl [*Lerefore, ][be ][sctupulouslg]obserued.. Clause [(a) ]of Sub-section [(6) ][of ][Section ][4 ][of ][the ][Act ][speaks ][of]

tennincttion of senice of an emplogee for ang ac[ willful omission ornegligence causing anA damage Houseuer, the amoutrt liabLe to beforfeited [u.tould. ][be ][ontg to the ][efient ][of damage ][or ][loss ][caused."]negligence causing anA damage Houseuer, the amoutrt liabLe to beforfeited [u.tould. ][be ][ontg to the ][efient ][of damage ][or ][loss ][caused."]

In view of the above frndings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held thatthe petitioner is entitled to pay'ment of gratuity on the basrs of lengthof his service. It- is allowed accordingly.

DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENTS:

42. ln the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy22, theHon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier Judgments and heldthus:

"47. Sh.ri Sanjag Kapur, leamed counsel for the Bank relieson SBI u. Ram Lql Bhaskar ISBI u. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC249 : (20121) 1 SCC &Aq 4021 . In ttnt judgtent the scope of jtdicialreuiew of departrnental proceedings u)as set out and the principle laiddown in State of A.P- u. S. Sree Rama Ra,o [State of A.P. u. S. SreeRama Roo 1963 SCC Online SC 6 : AIR 1963 SC 17231 uas, reiterated., uthi':h reads as follotus : - " Tlis Court has held in State of A.P. v. S. Sree RamaRao [Stete of A.P. u. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 SCC Online SC 6AIR 1963 SC 17231 : (SCC Online SC para 7):

"7. . - 'lhe High Court is not constituted in a proceeding underArttcle 226 of the Constitution a court of oppeal ouer th.edecisiorr of the auttnrities holding a d.epartmpfio.l enquiryogainst a public seruant : it is conerned. to determine utLetlwrthe enquiry is held bg an dutfaiv competent in that Lteha$and according to the procedure prescrtbed in tlat belnl| and 22 2023 SCC Onl.ine SC 7064: (20231 14 SCC 39i uhether the rules of natural iustice [are ][not ][uiolated' ][Wlere]there is some euidence, uhich [tlrc ][dutltDritA ][entrusted ][u'tith ][the]dutg to ltold the enqtiry [hos accepted ][and ][uhich ][euidence ][mag]reasonablA suppott tlrc [conclusion ][ttnt ][the delinquent olficer ][is]guiltg oJ the charge, it is [not ][tle ]function [of ][fie ][Hrgh Court ][in a]petition for a uit under [Article ][226 ][to reuiettt ][the ][evidence ][aru7]to arrtue at an [independent ]finding [on ][tlte ][euidence.']

13. Thtts, in a [proceeding unrler Article ][226 ][oJ ][tle ][Cottstitutiory]tle High Court [d.oes ][not sl, as an ][Lppellote ][authoitA ][ouer ][the]findings [of ][tlg ][disciptinary ][a ][ttnrita ][dnl ][so ][long ][a's ][the]fiylinq [of ][the discipltnary ][authoit! ][ore ][supported ][bg ][some]euidence the High Court [does ][not ][reappreciate ][the ][euidetrce]--and. come [- ]to [- ]a diffetenl' [ariit-indepenlenl ]findinj [on ][the]euidence. This [position ][of ][laut ][hr.:,s ][been ][reiteroted ][in ][seueral]d"ecbions bA this [Court uthich we ][need ][not ][refer ][to, ][and ][get ][bA]ttrc tmpugned Ttdgment [tte ][High ][Court ][ho,s ][reappreciated ][the]euid.ence onl. ariued [at ][the ][anrclusion ][tnt ][the ]findingsrecorded bg the eru(iry [officer ][are not ][substartiated ][bg ][ang]m< eial on record and tle [allegatiotts leuelled ][against]Respondent 7 do not constitute [anA ][mi-sconduct ][and ][that]Respondent 1 uas tat [guiltA of ][any ][mi-sconduct."]

42. It is nou.t utell settled [that ][tte ][scope ][of judiciaL ][revteut]against o departmental [en4uiry proceeding ][is ][uery ][limited' ][It ][i-s ][not ][in]tle noture of an [appeal ][and ][a ][reuteu on ][meits ][of ][the decision ][is ][not]permissible. The scope of te [enquiry ][is ][to ][examine ][uhether ][the]tlecision-making [process ][is ][legitimate ][and ][to ensure ][that ][the ][fndings]are not berefi of ang [eutdence. ][If ][the records reueal ][that ][the ][findings]are based on some [euidence, ][it is ][not ][tlte ]futrction [of ][the court ][in ][a]judicial reuiettt to reapPreciqte the [same ][and ][aniue at ][an independent]fnling [on ][th.e ][euid.ence. This ][lakslunan ][rekhtt ][lns ][been ][recognised]and reiteraled. in [a ][long line ][ofjudgments ][of ][this ][Court'"]

43. fn the case [of ][Union of ][India ][Vs. ][Parma ][Nanda ][(11 supra), ][the]

Honlcle Supreme [Court ][held ][as ][under:]

"27. Wre must unpEiiuocallg state that the jurisdiction of theTlibunat to it'tterfere uith tlrc di.sciplinary matters or punishmentcannot be equated utth an appellate juri.sdiction- The Tibuna[ cantotinterfere Luith the rtndings of the inqtiry offi.cer or competent authoitgtr.there tLLeu are not arbitrary or ulterlg peruerse. It ts appropriate toremember tha: the pouer to impose penaltg on a delinquent officer isconferred ctn the competent authoritg either bg an Act of legislature ortules made: under the prouiso to Article 309 of the Con stihltion. lf fiLerehas been an enquiry consistent uith tle nLles and in accordance uithprinciples of natural justice uhnt punishnent uould meet th.e <tnds ofjustice is o mTtter exclusiuelA uithin the jurisdiction of the conpetentautlrcitg. lf the penaltg can lawfullg be imposed and is impo.sed onthe proued misconduct, the Tri.bunol hr:s no potaer to substitute itsou)n discretiotl for ttnt of the authoitg. The adequacg of F,enaltAunless it is m.ala fde is certainlg not a malter for the Tribttnal toconcem itself uith- The Tibunal al-so cannot interfere uith the penqltAif the conctusion of the inqtiry officer or the competent autfu,ritA isbased ort euicl.ence euen if some of it is found to be irreleuqnt orertraTneous to the mdtter.

37. In the light of the pinciples to tuhich rae haue calledattention and in uteu of the aJoresaid discussio& the ord.er of theTribunal unposing ct lesser penaltg on tLe respond.ent cannot,Tribunal unposing ct lesser penaltg on tLe respond.ent cannot,therefore, lte :;ustained. He Luas found WiltA of the charge framedagainst him. He utas q party to th.e fraudulent act for self-aggrqndisemetLt. He prepared bogus documents for withdrauat ofsalary in the nctme of Aslnk Kumar utho tuas not tuorking in hisdiuision. He fuis thas proued himself unbecoming and. unworthV todiuision. He fuis thas proued himself unbecoming and. unworthV tohold ang post. Ang sgmpath! or charitable uieu on such olficiats utillnot be cond ciue to keep tlte streams of administration pure uhich isso uital for the s.tccess of our democracE."

44. tn the case of Kerala Solvent Drtractions Ltd. Vs.A.Uanikrishnan and another (9 supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Courtheld as follows "9. Shri Vaidganathan, [leamed ][Senior ][Counsel ]for [the]appellant, submitted, in [our opinion ][not ][Loitlnut ][justification, ][that ][the]Labour Court's reasoning bordered on [peruersitA ][and" ][such]unreasoned, uftdue liberdli.sm [and misplaced sgmpathg ][llould ][subuert]all discipline in the admini.stration. [He ][stated ][tfnt ][the ][management]uill hnue rK) ansu)er [to ][the ][cloim.s ][oJ ][similarly disqualified ][condidates]u.thich might hnue ame to [be ][rejected Tlnse ][uho ][stated the ttuth]ulould be said to be at a [disadu(lntage ][and ][those ][uho ][suppressed ][it]stood to gain. He Junher [submitted ][thnt this ][laxity ][oJ ][judicial]reasoning tuill imperceptiblg [inlroduce slacftness ][and unpredictability]inth,e tes.at process and, inlk!:f|*:":\a_:*_can1!9!gi!19;p [of tne]judictal process.

70. We are inclined to agree uith [th.ese ][submissions. ][In ][recent]times, tllere is an increasing [euidence ][oJ ][this, ][perhaps ][uell ][meant ][but]uhollg ursustainable terulencg [tou)ards ][a ][denudation ][of ][the]legttimacg of [judiciat ][reasoning ][and ][process. ][The ][reliefs ][granted ][bV ][tlle]courts must be seen to [be ][lo@cal ][and tenab[e ][uithin ][ttte ]frameuork [oJ]the lau.t and sLauld not [incur ][ann ][justifu ][the citicism ][ttat ][the]jurisdiction oJ the courts tends to degenerate [into ][mispta.ced ][sgntpdthA,]generositg and piuate beneuolence- It [is ][essential ][to ][maintain ][the]integitA of legal [reasoning ][and ][tLrc ][le@timacg of ][the ][conclusions. ][Theg]flrust emanate logtcallg from [tte ][legol ]findings [and ][the ]iudicial [results]must be seen to be [pincipled ][and ][supportable ][on ][those ]findings'Expansiue [judicial ]mood [of ][mistaken ][and ][misploced ][compassion ][at ][the]expense of the legitirnacg [of ][tlrc ][process ][tuill ][euentuollg ][lead" ][to]mutuallg irreconcilable [situatiorl-s ][and ][d-enude ][the ][judicial ][process ][of]its dignifu , duthoritA, [pledictabilitg ][and ][re ][spectobilitg. ]["]

45. In the case of Luckaow [Kshethreeya ][Gramin Bank ][Vs']Rajendra Singh (8 [supra), ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][held ][as]follows:

" 73, Indubitably, [th.e ][uell-ingrained ][pinciple ][oJ ][laut ][is ][that ][it ][is]the disciplinary authoitA, [or the ][appellnte ][autlnitg ][in ][appeal, ][uhich]is to decide tle nature [of punisfunent ][to ][be giuen ][to ][a ][delinElent]

emplogee kee-ping in vieu the senousness of the mis.onductcotrunitted by .such an emplogee. Courts cannot assume and usurp thefunction [of ][th.e ][disciplinory ][authoitg- ][In ]Apparel Eryort [Pronation]Couttctl u. A.K. Ctapra [(1999) 1 SCC 759 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 4051 thispinciple uas e-xplained in tLrc following manner: (SCC p. 773, pdra 22)cotrunitted by .such an emplogee. Courts cannot assume and usurp thefunction [of ][th.e ][disciplinory ][authoitg- ][In ]Apparel Eryort [Pronation]Couttctl u. A.K. Ctapra [(1999) 1 SCC 759 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 4051 thispinciple uas e-xplained in tLrc following manner: (SCC p. 773, pdra 22)

'22. . . . The High Court in our opinion fell in eror in interferingu.tith tlrc punishmen| uhich could be lautfullg imposed bg thedeparttnental authoities on the respondent for his prouenmisconduct. ... The High CourT slbuld not l.aue substituted its otl)ndiscrehon .,For tLtat of the autlaritg. What punisttment utas requiredto be irnposed, in the facts and circumstances oJ th.e case, uas d.matter uJlich fell exclusiuelg utthin the juisdiction cf thecompetent authorttA [qnd ]did not uarrqnt anA interference by tlteHigh Court, The entire approach of the Htgh Court Lws been faulty.The impugned order of tle High Court cannot be sustained on thisground alote."

15. As rs clear from tlLe dboue tlult the judictal reuieut of thequanlum o-f punishment is auailable utth a uery limited scope. It isonlg ulrcn lhe penaltg imposed oppears to be shockinglgquanlum o-f punishment is auailable utth a uery limited scope. It isonlg ulrcn lhe penaltg imposed oppears to be shockinglgdisproportionaie to tlY nature of mi-sconduct tlwt tte @urts wouldfrotun [upon. Euen ][in such a ][case, ]afier [setting ]aside the penaltg order,it is to be lefi tc the disciplinary/ appellate autlaritg to take a de_cisionfrotun [upon. Euen ][in such a ][case, ]afier [setting ]aside the penaltg order,it is to be lefi tc the disciplinary/ appellate autlaritg to take a de_cisionafresh ancl it is not for the court to substitute its decision bgprescibing the qtanhtm of punishment."prescibing the qtanhtm of punishment."

46. tn the c€rse of Disciplinary Authoritg-cum-RegionalManager and others Vs. Nikra,nja Bihari Patnalk (lO supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Oourt held as follows:

"7. It maA be mentioned tlnt in tlw memorandum of charges,the aforesaid tuo regulo.tions are ssid to haue been uiolated lry *rcrespondent. Regulotion 3 requires euery offi.cer/ emplogee of the bankto take aJl possibl-e steps to protect tlw interests oJ-.the bank and.._todischarge his duties Luith utmost integitg, tnnestg, d.evotion and.

((

diligence and to do nothing uhich is unbecoming of a bdnk offrer. Itrequires the officer/emplogee to maintain good conductand di-scipline and to act to the best of hk [judgment ]in [performance ]oJhi.s official duties or in exerci.se of the powers conferred upon [hinL,']Breach 6f Regalation 3 is 'misconduct' ruithin tte meaning olRegulation 24. The findings of the Inquiry Officer uhich ltaue [been]accepted bg the disctplindry authoritA, ond uthich haue rwt [been]disturbed bg the High Court, clearlg shoto thDt in a number ofinstances the respondent ollou.rcd ouerdrafi,s or [possed ]chequesinuoluing sttbstantial amounts begond his [authoritg. ][Tnre, ]it is [tttat ]insome coses, no loss hqs resulted from such acts. It is [qlso ]tnte that insome other instances such [qcts ]lwue [gielded ][profit ]to the Bank but it i.sequallg true thdt in some other instances, the IundB of. the-Bank hauebeen placed in [jeopardg; ]tlw aduanrces haue b)ecome stickg andirecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreadingouer a sulficientlA long period and inuoluing [q ]large ftumber oftransactions. In the case of a bank for that matter, in tlle case of- ang other organisation euery olficer/ [emploAee ]is [supposed to ][act]utithin the Limits of his authoritA. If each officer/ emplogee ts allowed. tooct begond hk autloritA, th.e disciptine oJ the organisation/ bqnk willdtsoppear; the functioning of the bank uould become chaotic [ond]unmanageable.....

As mentioned hereinbefore, the uery discipline of anorganisation and more [particulorlg, ]a bar* is depervJent upon each [oJ]its emploAees and officers acting and operating uithin their [allotled]sphere. Acting beAond one's duthoritg is bg itsetf a breach [of ][discipLine]and a breach of Reqtlation 3. It [constitutes misconduct ]uithin [tlle]m.eaning of Regulation 24. No furtter [proof ]of [loss ]is [reallg ][necessarg]tltough as a matter of fact, in this ca.se ttere are findings thht [seueral]aduances and ouerdranuals alloued bg [thE respondent ]beyond [his]authtitg laue become stickg and irecouerable-----"

However, these decisions are distinguishable on facts. It has [treen]brought out that there is no evidence on record to [prove ][the alleged]

I

I

oW.P.No.16221 of2020

40

misconduct of the petitioner and therefore, this court under Article226 of the Conr;titution of India can exercise the power of judicialrevlew.

47. With th.ese observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs

48. Pending ntiscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petitionshall stand closerl.

SDIP, PADIUANABHA REDDYASSISTANT REGISTRARsEcnoN BFFTcER [I]

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The Chairman, State Bank of lndia, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan,Nariman Point, lVlumbai, N/aharashtra-400021Nariman Point, lVlumbai, N/aharashtra-400021

2. The Managing Director, State Bank of lndia, Corporate Centre, State BankBhavan, Nariman Point, firlumbai, Maharashtra-4O0021Bhavan, Nariman Point, firlumbai, Maharashtra-4O0021

3. The Deputy Managing Direct and Corporate Development Officer, State Eankof lndia, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai,Maharashtra-400021of lndia, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai,Maharashtra-400021

4. The Chief Genc'ral Manager, State Bank of lndia, Local Head Office, BankStreet, Koti, Hyderabad-500095Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500095

5. The General Manager (Network), State Bank of lndia, Lor;al Head Office,Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500095Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500095

6. One CC to SRI lfr. A.RAGHU KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate IOPUCI

8. Two CD Copies

BSRBS

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED: 3111212024

ORDERWP.No.16223 ot 2020

?.1-\rao,l ra)::,rli)02,i'l [2[25]\ [i,"]AI.,,7

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS