Batta Satyanarayana v. State Bank Of India

& [ 32{e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY .

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 16223 0F 2020 Between:

Batta Satyanarayana, S/o. B.Ananthaiah, Aged about 62 yqqr.s' pc-c--Ex A.iiit*t 'e"n"tat Hadniqet (loR), State Bank of lndia, Local Head. Office' nvoeiauaa - 500095, ny6. n.uo.3-+-s2911, Flat No.401, Nath Shantiniketan Airartment, Barkatpura' Hyderabad 50OO27'

PETITIONER AND State Bank of lndia, rep by its Chairman, Cqrp-o1qte Centre, State Bank Bhauan, Nariman Point, t\4umbai, Maharashtra-400021 The Manaoino Director, State Bank of lndia, Corporate Centre, State Bank ghavin, Nlririan Point, Mumbai, Nlaharashtra-400021 The Deputy Managing Direct and Corporate.Development Officer, State Bank oi'ln*oii-doiporiie bentre, state B'ank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai, J Maharashtra-400021 TheChiefGeneralManager,StateBankoflndia,LocalHeadOffice'Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500095 The General lt/lanager (Network), State Bank of lndia, Local Head office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad-500095 ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or directidn particularly One in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the Appointing Authority order dated O8t1212o15 communicated vide the GM(NW-llb Lr'No' No.VIG/TPT/DTVi822 dated 1011212015 issuing the order of Dismissal, Appellate Authority order dated 2610512017 communicated viOe O6M and CDO' SBI LHO' HyderabadLr.No.

through the DG l\,4 and CDO, SBt LHO, Hyderabad in Lr. No.HR,ARl/No.41 dated o1lo2l2019 commurricating the decision of the central Human Resources committee, corporale centre, rejecting the reviEw petition of the petitioner, as iltegal, arbitrary, without any evidence, viorative of Article 14 and 1 6 of the constitution of lndia, violative of principles of law of evidence and pi.inciples of natural justice an{ quash and set aside the same and furt-her declarB',tnrt tt " petitioner is entitled with all consequential benefits, viz., pay and allowances from the date of suspension till the date of retirement, continuity of service, seniority and promotions and terminal benefits including pension.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to direct the respondents to release the gratuity of the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Dr. A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: ORDER t.

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JI'STICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITroN NO.16223 0F 20.20

ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner 1S seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that (i) the order' of dismissal from service dated O8.12.2O15 passed by the Appoinling Authorit5/ and communicated vide GM(NW-III) Lr.No.VIG/TPT I Drv 1822 dated ro.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 (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 communicating the decision of the Central Humal Resources Committee, Corporate Centre, rejecting the review petition of the Petitioner,

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 as illegal, arbitrary, wittrout any evidence, violative of Artir:Ies 14 and 16 of t1.e Constitution of India, violative of principles of law of evidence ald principles of natural justice and consequentLy to quash and set aside the same; and (iv) further declare that the petitioner is entifled. to all the consequential benefits viz., pay and ailowalct:s from the date of suspension tiII the date of retirement, continuit5r of service, seniority and promoLions ancl terminal benefits including pension, and to pass such other order or orders.

2.

Brief facts l:ading to the filing of the present Writ petition are that the petitioner initially joined in the respondenl:-Bank on 20.08.1977 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier; was promoted as Trainee Ofhcer on' 01.08.1983; rls Assistant General Manager on O1.11.2OO2. Thereafter, he was posted as Regional Maaager, Regionat Business Offrce, Kurnool during May,2OO7. The petitioner claims to have put in 36 years of service in the respondents, orgalization without arry complaints whatsoever and submitted that he has received highest accolades and appreciations throughout his serrice of more than 36 years including two appreciations-cum-felicitations from tl.e Chairman, SBI and the District Collector for his Commendable Service during devastating floods in Kurnool in 2009.

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 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.

(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).

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

(11) He has not cautioned and not arranged for an inquiry to know the reasons for exceeding budget.

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 (l2l He controiled the sanction of the additional iimits in respe()t of one Sri R.V. Ramala.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The petitioner sutrmitted his defence statement on 25.04.2014 but, not being satished with the same, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an inquiry officer vide reference No.VIG/SGN/ 122 dated 28.04.2014 and rhereafter, the Disciplinary Authority placed the petitioner under suspension vide reference No.(HR-16)/ l7T6 d,ated 16.09.2014. It. is submitted that thereafter, the Disciplinary

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 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

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 not proved, and two charges i.e., Charges No.XV & XV'I as parfly proved and Charge No.XIX as proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority has opined that the Charges I, I[, VI, X, XII and XIII are also proved, Cha:'ges II, V, VIII, IX, XI and XVIII are partly proved and agreed that Charge No.XIX was proved. It is submitted that whiie communiceLting the report of the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has conveyed his disagreement to the findings of the Inquiring ()fficer by placing his reliance on the documentary evidence mentioned in the charge sheet but not on the oral/documentary evidence adduced during the course ,lf enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the: petitioner has submitted his detailed representation dt.05.09.

2015 zrgainst the disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority and also against the Inquiry Officer's report, once again reiterating that he has not committed any of the irregularities alleged in the charge sheet and pointed out the dehciencies in the inquiry and also submitted arother representation dated 07.1O.2O15 to the Disciplinary Authority in continuation of his earlier submissions. 5.

It is submitted that instead of the General Manager, being the Disciplinary Authorit5r ald having issued the charge memo arrd conducted the pror:eedings qp to the stagg._gf co4ygylng disagreement

W,P.No. t 6223 of 2020 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

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 sanctity ald suffers from improper consideration of the case of the petitioner in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted his appeal to the Appellate Committee on 71.02.2016 and the Appellate Committee, vide their lettcr t1t.21.O4.2O17, sought more information, such as proof of sale/ deposit/utilisation of cash shown in the MolJ, and that the petitioner has submitted the said details through his representation d1..24.O4.2OI4, but the Appeliate Committee has dismissed his appeal vide orders dt.3l.O7 .2oli' without consideration of the same. It is submitted that against the order of the Appellate Cornmittee, the peLitioner frled a Review Petition on 7I.12.

2017 but the reviewing authority also has not considered the case of the petitioner properly and has rejected the review petition without any basis vide orders dt.2a.Ol.2Ol9 and hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging tl-e order of removal which has merged with the order of Appellate Committee and thereafter with the order of the reviewing authority.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the CcM/Appointing Authority is liable to be set aside on the sole ground of violatio:n of principles of natural justice. It is submitted t}"at though there is a reference to various documents on the basis of which, 19 charges have been framed against the petitioner, no

W,P.No.16223 of 2020 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 Petitioner e e o owlng ocumen S:

(1) Synopsis-cum-written arguments filed on 2l '12 2023 ' (2\ Supplementary synopsis-cum-written arguments hled on 28.12.2023, ar,d

(3) List of citations Iiled on 12.01.2024.

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 charge memo dated l}.l2.2ol5, there was no specific loss to the

W.P.No.I6223 of 2020 bank and tha1. the respondents were also not aware of the defrnite loss 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 cannot be any charges of misconduct. It is submitted that only when the loss is ascertained and made part of the charge memo, a departmental enquiry can be held on that charge and an employee can effectively defend his case. It is submitted that though the Enquiry Officer has held the charges 1 to 14 and 1Z and 1g as not proved and only charges 15 and 16 as partly proved, the t)isciplinary Authority, without giving any reason, has held that he did not agree with the {indings of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the 19ft charge has been made during the course of ttre enquiry by way of supplementary charge dt.22.O9.

2014 which was further subjected to a corrigendum dt.16.lO.2OL4 without mentioning the documentary and oral evidence as the basis for such a charge. It is subtnitted that no documents we re added to the list of documents to *re charge sheet and no further witnesses were added in support of the said charge.

11. lt is submitted that the respondent Barrk neither produced any written or oral complaint made by Sri K.Ram prasad in the Vigilance Inquiry nor has brought him as prosecution witness to prove the a-llegation that the petitioner has gained any pecuniar5r benefit from

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 ll 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 1 1987 SrJ (CAT) 9s1 , AIR 1964 SC 364

W.P.No- 16223 of 2020 t2 Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy confirming that he made the paJrrnent of sale proceeds payable to the petitioner for sale of his property, to Sri I.i.Ram Prasad for sending the said remittances to petitioner's sons accounts in Canada through Axis Bank as SBI, Kurnool, Main Branch, was not the authorised bank to deal in foreign exchange. It is submitted that Sri K.Ram Prasad also submitted a notanzr'd sworn afhdavit dated 07. 10.2O1S explaining the source of funds for sending remittances to the petitioner,s sons in Canada through his Axis Bank Account. He also referred to the question No.343 a.nswered by P.W. I after going through the releva_nt exhibits, to the effect that he had not come across any t:vidence to prove that the relnittance to petitioner's sons' accounts in Calada was made at petihoner's insistence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was not involved in the said remittances

14. lt is further submitted that when a new charge No.xtx, is made during the course of the domestic enquiry, the Disciplinar,v Authority was required to speci$r, the evidence on the basis of which, the charge is made and afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer to defend the same through the defence evidence, but, in this case, the 19ft charge was raised during the course of the domestic inquiry alleging that certain credit facilities were sanctioned by the

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 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 2OO92015 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 respondent Bank has initiated action against the petitioner in respect of transactions pertaining to the contents of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, also against 12 othet officers, but all the 12

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 l4 offlcers including those who have conducted the preliminarJi inquiries, per-sarrction surveys into the entitlement of the loans or other transactions, those who recommended the transactions and those who ultimately approved the transitions were tet-off with smaller penaltj.es, whereas the petitioner was the only one, who was subjected 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 oJ Indiq. and otherss, for the proposition that in rlisciplinary proceedings, q,hi<:h are quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in case of united Bank of India Vs. Bisroanath BhattacharJeea, wherein the Honble Apex Court has reconsidered the entire issue of the role of the departmental proceedings and the scope of the Court to interferr_- in such proceedings under Article 226 of tlre Constitution of India.

17. ffrc learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this is a case of no t:vidence and hence deserves interventton of this Court. He submitted that the act of Disciplinary Authority in conveying 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

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 I5 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 -e ludgnrents 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 Gratuity Act.

It is submitted that under Sub-Sections 5 and 6 of 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 s (1998) 7 SCC 84 6 C.A.No.477O of 2006 dt.10. 1 1.2006 7 Civil Appeal No.8251 of2018 dated 14.08.

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 Vs. Rajendra Singha in support of his above contentions. He thus prayed for settrng aside of the termination order with all consequential ber:Lehts.

19. ffre learnecl Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, however supported the impugned orders and submitted that reasonable opporr-unity has been given to the petitioner during the course of disciplinary proceedings and merely because the Enquiry Ofhcer has given a finding that most of the charges are not proved, the Disciplinary i\uthorit5r is not bound by the same arrd he can differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and procet:d with the matter in accordance with law. In support of his contentions that reasonable opportunit5r was given to the petitioner, lhe learned counsel for the bank has strenuously taken this Court tirough a1l the documents fil:d along with the counter afhdarrit. He also placed reliance upon the lollowing judgments in support of his contentions. ll Kerala Soloent Ertra.ctions Ltd Vs. A.tlnnikrishnan and anothere

2) Disctplinary Authortty-cum-Reglonal Manager and otlrcrs Vs. Nikunja Birrori Patno;ikto 8 LAWS (SC)-2013-7- 126 , (2006)13 SCC 619

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 t7 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 superior officer who also happened to be the appointing authority, and after consideration of all the material on record and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the appointing authority had passed the order of dismissal from service and hence it 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 177 t2 2023 SCC online SC 1064

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 alone should pass ttre final order in the disciplinary proceedings.?

(2) Whether the Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary authority was- on the basis of any evidence recorded during the course of enquiry?

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

(4) Whether charge No.XIX can be framed without giving the basis for such a charge and without the list of documents and witnesses 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 of 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, the Disciplinary Authority has issued the charge memo, appointed the enquiry offrcer, but differed with the enquiry report ald sirbmitted a Disagreement Note. It is the cardinal principle and settled law that the offrcer who has issued the charge sheet and heard the petitioner, should alone pass the final order as he would be the person who is aware of all the facts and therefore, would be abie to take an informed and vre1l considered decision. He would be ab1e. to reflect

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 t9 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

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 the charge memo for coming to the conclusion that the charges against the peti:ioner are proved. His hndings or obsewations against the findings of the enquiry officer are not on the trasis of any evidence prodllced during the course of enquiry or the witnesses examined during ttre course of enquiry. The documents or witnesses referred to in the charge memo are only for coming to a pima facie opinion for framing of the charges against the delinquent employee, but the hndings of the enquiry offrcer are on the basis of the witnesses and lhe documents examined during the course of enquiry.

lf the Dis;ciplinary Authority were to differ with the hndings of the enquiry oilicer, he would have to base the same on the evidence recorded during the course of enquiry and not on the basis of preliminar5r information used for framing of charges against the employee. The leuLrned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has not been able to bring on record any independen-t evidence supporting the stand of the Disciplinary Authority on his Disagreement Note. Therefore, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

W.P.No.l622l of 2020 2t

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 is 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

W.P.No.I6223 of 2020 been able to a.ssess the loss caused to the bank, leave alone the assessment at the time of issuance of the charge memo, charge sheet or even the final orders of termination from service. Without arriving at arty conclusion about the quantum of loss which was caused due to the alleged acrs of misconduct by the petitioner, the gravit5z or otherwise of the c,ffence could not be gauged and the severity of the punishment to lte imposed cannot be decided. If the loss is quantified, the respondent bank would be in a position to not only recover the loss so incurred arid quantify the compensation to be recovered from the petitioner, but also decide on the severity of the punishment to br: imposed. Therefore, point No.3 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

25. tn the case of Union of India Vs. H.C. coet (2 supra), it ws held that "Though ue futlA oppreciate the anxietg oJ the appeltant to root out conuption -front public serui.ce, ule cannot ignore the fact that in corrytng out tlp sqid purpose, mere suspicion should. not be alloued. to take the place of prooJ euen in domesti.c enqiies. It mag be thnt the tecluical rule:: uthich gouern criminal trials in courts mau not necessailg apptA to disciptinary proceedings, but neuerttrcless, the pinctple that t,. punishing the guittg scrupulous care must be taken to see that tle innocent are not punisled, applies as much to regular ciminql trtals as to disciplinary enquiies heLd. und.er the statutory rules."

W.P.No.16223 of 2020

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

W.P.No.16223 of2020 brought the said person as a witness and examined him as to the source of the fund and also the circumstances under which t.Ile transfer has ber:n made. The petitioner has relied upon the notarised affudavi: of one Sri Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy who submitted that due to sale of property to him and sinr:e both Sri Peddireddy Venkataswamy Reddy and the borrower lived in the same apartment, they were known to each other and that the transaction has been done through Sri K.Ram Prasad and the said contention has not been disproved by the respondent Bank. The respondents ought to have brought the said person on record and tried to elicit the truth.

Furth:r, though several allegations have been made against the petitioner, unless until, such misconduct has been found to have caused lcss to the balk in any way, the respondent Bank could not have initiated action against the petitioner. The respondent has not computed the loss caused by the alleged acts of misconduct bv l.he petitioner and therefore, the charges are apparently vague and could not be substantiated with any evidence arrd the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to counter such allegations.

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020

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 the findings are based on euidence, the qtestion of arlequacV of tlrc evtderrce or th.e reliable nature ol tLE euiderrce uill not be groun.ds for interfering 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 14 (2011) 4 SCC 584 rs 2022 O Supreme(AP) 274 2022 4 ALD 612 : 2022 3 ALT 730

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 '77. T\e departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Althougll the prouisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceedlng, pinciples of natural justice are required to be comptied witlr- Ttte courts exercising pouter of judicictl reuieut are entitled to cc.nsider a-s to ulrctter uhile inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer releuant piece of eutdence h.as been taken into consideration and ireleuant facts haue been exchtded tterefrom- Inferenre on facts must be bo^sed on evidence uthich meet tlB reqlirements of legal princtples. The Tribunal uas, th11s, entitled to affiue at its olxn conclusion on tle premise that th.e eui.dence adduced bg th.e Department, euen if it is taken on i,ts face ualue to be cotrect in its enttretA, meet th.

e reqttirements of burden of proof, namelg, preponderance of probabilitg. If on such euidences, the test of thez doctine of proportionalitg has tot been satisfi.e-d, the Tribunal uas urithin its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctine of unreasonableness is giuing uaA to tlLe doctine of proportionalitU. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker lal Siuastaua [(2006) 3 SCC 276 : 2006 SCC OAg 521] and Coimbatore 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 review is limited. Disdplinary proceedings, lauteuer, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should. be some euidence to proue tlu clwrge. Although th.e charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like q criminal tial i.e. begond all reasonable doub[ tue cannot lose sight of tle fact that tlte enquiry offrcer perJorm-s a qtasi-judiciat funLtion who upon analgsing the d.ocuments must ariue at a anclusion thot there had been a preponderance of probability to proue the charges ort the ba.sis of mateials on record.. While d.oing so, lu cannot take inlo ansideration ang ineleudnt fact. He cannot refuse to 16 (2008) 3 SCC 484

W-P.No,16223 of 2020 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-"

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 t7 2000 (2],APIJ 473 (HC) 18 (1959) O1 KAR CK 0003

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 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 person. ancl it is entirelg a different thing to make a statement in the presence of a person against uhom gou are going to make serious charges."

I am irt full altreement uith the uieut expressed bg tl.Leir Lordships of the Bombag High Court in the said case. In mg opinion, it tuould make a great dilference if tE statement of tlle uritness concerned is taken in the 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 therefore hold thnt the prtnciples oJ natural justice also required thal such statements should be taken in tlle presence of the persots cLnrged and, as I hnue alreadg indicated" Rule 245 oJ the Generd circulars and StancLing Orders also makes a provision to that effect- This contentton of the petittoner must therefore succeed."

34. tn the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.V.perumal and othersle, it was held that "The Tibunal seents to be under the impression thqt the enquiry officer/ disciplitary auttoritA is bound to suppty each and. euery do{alment that mag be asked for bg the delinquent Offi.cer/ emplogee. It is urong thtzre. Their dutg is onlg to supplg releuant docuntents and not each and euery dodtment asked for bg the deliruTtent officer/ emplogee. In this case the respondent had asked, for certatn documents- The Registrar to wtnm the requ.est utas mad.e called upon him to spectfg the releuance of each and euery doctment asked for 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 expressed ang opinion uhetlzr th.e documents asked for utere indeed releuant and 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 le 1996 SCALE (5) 379 : JT 1996 {6), 604

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 gate Bank of Patiala u. S.K.Sharma [1996 (3) SCAIts 202]. k was the 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-ding Luhefter 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 me!19 wa! ilsqged to the petitioner with 18 ,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 case36. 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

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 "The Hbh Court maA undoubtedlg interfere uhere the deparlmental authoities tu:ve held the proceedings against the delinquett in a manner inan^sistent with the rules of nahtral justice or in ublation of the stohttory rules prescibing tlle mode of enquiry or where the authorities haue disabled tlemselves from reachtng a fair decision bg some consi-d.erations extrdneous to the euidetrce and the meits of the case or by allotuing themselues to be inJluenced bg ineleuant considerations or ullere the conclusion on tfle uery fqce of it is so ttlhollg arbitrory and capicious that no reasorutble person could euer haue arriued ot thot conclusion, or on similar ground-s."

37. es regards Point No.6, it is noticed that along with the petitioner, 12 othr:r officials of the bank have also been issued charge memos arld enquiry was conducted and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is quite disproportionate as compared to the punishment imposed on other employees. Even if the petitioner has not questioned the findings of the enquiry officer w-ith regard to the charges which arr: held as partly proved or proved, the punishment imposed would b(: excessive, particularly when it is compared with the punishment imposed by the respondent bank on othr:r ofhcials. The Hon'ble Courts have tirne and again held that the punishment has to be commensurate with the severit5r of the offence ald has to be uniform in respect of all the employees who are involved in the same or similar misconduct. Though the petitioner has raised a specifrc ground in this Writ Petition about the discrimination against him in awa-rding the pr:nishment as compared to other employees,

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 3l 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 reinitiate 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

W.P.No.16223 cf2020 the petitioner for back wages for the period between termination and reinstatement into service conseqrrent to this order, the respondents are directed to take a decision on the same after conclusion of the proceedings, if an.y, on Charge No.XIX. Further, as regards the claim of the petitioner fcrr payment of gratuity, irrespective of the pendenry of the proceedings/punishment against the petitioner, this Court hnds that the leierned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

39. In the case of Balbir Kaur and another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others2r, the Honlcle Supreme Court held as under: "As regards the prouisions oJ the Pagment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amend.ed from time to time) it is no longer in the realm of chrtitll but a statutory ight prouided. in fauour of the emplogee. Section 4 c,f the Act is of some significance and as such the same is set out herein below:

4. Pagment of gratuitg. (1) Gratuitg shall be payable to an empiogee on the termitation of his emplogment afier he hl.s rend.ered 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 shall not be necessary where tle termination of the enploAment oJ dng emplogee is due to death or disablement."

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

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 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 for tle misconduct tuhich according to tte Bank is an offetrce inuoluing moral 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 for qtantification th.

ereoJ as also the conditions on ulhich trc mag be denied ttrcrefrom- As noticed lereinbefore, sub-section (6) of Section 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 fulfilledTh.e prouisiors contained tlrcrein musl *Lerefore, be sctupulouslg obserued..

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 tennincttion of senice of an emplogee for ang ac[ willful omission or negligence causing anA damage Houseuer, the amoutrt liabLe to be forfeited 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 that the petitioner is entitled to pay'ment of gratuity on the basrs of length of 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier Judgments and held thus:

"47. Sh.ri Sanjag Kapur, leamed counsel for the Bank relies on SBI u. Ram Lql Bhaskar ISBI u. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 249 : (20121) 1 SCC &Aq 4021 . In ttnt judgtent the scope of jtdicial reuiew of departrnental proceedings u)as set out and the principle laid down in State of A.P- u. S. Sree Rama Ra,o [State of A.P. u. S. Sree Rama 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 Rama Rao [Stete of A.P. u. S. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 SCC Online SC 6 AIR 1963 SC 17231 : (SCC Online SC para 7):

"7. . - 'lhe High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Arttcle 226 of the Constitution a court of oppeal ouer th.e decisiorr of the auttnrities holding a d.epartmpfio.l enquiry ogainst a public seruant : it is conerned. to determine utLetlwr the 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

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 3s 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 findings recorded 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:

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 "27. Wre must unpEiiuocallg state that the jurisdiction of the Tlibunat to it'tterfere uith tlrc di.sciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated utth an appellate juri.sdiction- The Tibuna[ cantot interfere Luith the rtndings of the inqtiry offi.cer or competent authoitg tr.there tLLeu are not arbitrary or ulterlg peruerse. It ts appropriate to remember tha: the pouer to impose penaltg on a delinquent officer is conferred ctn the competent authoritg either bg an Act of legislature or tules made: under the prouiso to Article 309 of the Con stihltion. lf fiLere has been an enquiry consistent uith tle nLles and in accordance uith principles of natural justice uhnt punishnent uould meet th.e <tnds of justice is o mTtter exclusiuelA uithin the jurisdiction of the conpetent autlrcitg.

lf the penaltg can lawfullg be imposed and is impo.sed on the proued misconduct, the Tri.bunol hr:s no potaer to substitute its ou)n discretiotl for ttnt of the authoitg. The adequacg of F,enaltA unless it is m.ala fde is certainlg not a malter for the Tribttnal to concem itself uith- The Tibunal al-so cannot interfere uith the penqltA if the conctusion of the inqtiry officer or the competent autfu,ritA is based ort euicl.ence euen if some of it is found to be irreleuqnt or ertraTneous to the mdtter.

37. In the light of the pinciples to tuhich rae haue called attention and in uteu of the aJoresaid discussio& the ord.er of the Tribunal unposing ct lesser penaltg on tLe respond.ent cannot, therefore, lte :;ustained. He Luas found WiltA of the charge framed against him. He utas q party to th.e fraudulent act for selfaggrqndisemetLt. He prepared bogus documents for withdrauat of salary in the nctme of Aslnk Kumar utho tuas not tuorking in his diuision. He fuis thas proued himself unbecoming and. unworthV to hold ang post. Ang sgmpath! or charitable uieu on such olficiats utill not be cond ciue to keep tlte streams of administration pure uhich is so 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 Court held as follows

W.P.No.l6223 of2020 "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

W.P.No.l6223 of 2020 emplogee kee-ping in vieu the senousness of the mis.onduct cotrunitted by .such an emplogee. Courts cannot assume and usurp the function of th.e disciplinory authoitg- In Apparel Eryort Pronation Couttctl u. A.K. Ctapra [(1999) 1 SCC 759 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 4051 this pinciple uas e-xplained in tLrc following manner: (SCC p. 773, pdra 22) '22. . . . The High Court in our opinion fell in eror in interfering u.tith tlrc punishmen| uhich could be lautfullg imposed bg the departtnental authoities on the respondent for his prouen misconduct. ... The High CourT slbuld not l.aue substituted its otl)n discrehon .,For tLtat of the autlaritg. What punisttment utas required to be irnposed, in the facts and circumstances oJ th.e case, uas d. matter uJlich fell exclusiuelg utthin the juisdiction cf the competent authorttA qnd did not uarrqnt anA interference by tlte High Court, The entire approach of the Htgh Court Lws been faulty. The impugned order of tle High Court cannot be sustained on this ground alote."

15. As rs clear from tlLe dboue tlult the judictal reuieut of the quanlum o-f punishment is auailable utth a uery limited scope. It is onlg ulrcn lhe penaltg imposed oppears to be shockinglg disproportionaie to tlY nature of mi-sconduct tlwt tte @urts would frotun 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_cision afresh ancl it is not for the court to substitute its decision bg prescibing the qtanhtm of punishment."

46. tn the c€rse of Disciplinary Authoritg-cum-Regional Manager 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 *rc respondent. Regulotion 3 requires euery offi.cer/ emplogee of the bank to take aJl possibl-e steps to protect tlw interests oJ-.the bank and.._to discharge his duties Luith utmost integitg, tnnestg, d.evotion and.

W.P.No.16223 of 2020 diligence and to do nothing uhich is unbecoming of a bdnk offrer. It requires the officer/emplogee to maintain good conduct and di-scipline and to act to the best of hk judgment in performance oJ hi.s official duties or in exerci.se of the powers conferred upon hinL,' Breach 6f Regalation 3 is 'misconduct' ruithin tte meaning ol Regulation 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 of instances the respondent ollou.rcd ouerdrafi,s or possed cheques inuoluing sttbstantial amounts begond his authoritg. Tnre, it is tttat in some coses, no loss hqs resulted from such acts. It is qlso tnte that in some other instances such qcts lwue gielded profit to the Bank but it i.

s equallg true thdt in some other instances, the IundB of. the-Bank haue been placed in jeopardg; tlw aduanrces haue b)ecome stickg and irecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of action spreading I I ( ( ouer a sulficientlA long period and inuoluing q large ftumber of transactions. 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. to oct begond hk autloritA, th.e disciptine oJ the organisation/ bqnk will dtsoppear; the functioning of the bank uould become chaotic ond unmanageable.....

As mentioned hereinbefore, the uery discipline of an organisation 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

=1_--3idE o W.P.No.16221 of2020 misconduct of the petitioner and therefore, this court under Article 226 of the Conr;titution of India can exercise the power of judicial revlew.

47. With th.ese observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs 48.

Pending ntiscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closerl.

SDIP, PADIUANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcnoN BFFTcER I To,

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

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

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

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

5. The General Manager (Network), State Bank of lndia, Lor;al Head Office, Bank 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 BSR BS

CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212024 ?.

o ra 1-\ r ,l ::, ra) li) \ i,"

02,i'l 2[25 .,,7 I

ORDER

WP.No.16223 ot 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS