State Bank Of India vs Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr

State Bank of India ... Appellant

Versus

Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 12.04.2006

of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2003.

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1

worked as a Branch Manager of the appellant-Bank at

Sirsaganj Branch. He was served with a charge-sheet dated

22.12.1999 alleging various acts of misconduct as the

Branch Manager of Sirsaganj Branch. Thereafter, an

enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a

2

report dated 28.09.2000 holding that four out of the six

charges were proved against the respondent no.1. The

charges No.1, 2, 4 and 6 which were proved against the

respondent no.1 in the enquiry are as follows:

"Sl.No. CHARGES

1. He authorized opening of a Savings Bank Account

No.18776 on 31st March 1999 in the name of

"Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayake Gane" a

religious body at he Sirsaganj Branch without

completing the formalities connected with opening

of new accounts of such societies.

2. He debited Savings Bank Account No.18776 of

"Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayaka Gane"

with Rs.one lac on 04.08.1999 on forged signatures

of the depositor and credited the amount to his

Savings Bank Account No.101/18360 at the

Branch. The debit and credit vouchers have been

passed by him.

4. Zonal Office vide S.L. No.P&C/483 dated

08.12.1998 advised the Branch regarding posting of

Field Officer/Manager (Agri) at the Branch and

handing over the relative charge to the concerned

persons. He intentionally did not make

arrangements for handing over the charge of Field

Officer/Manager (Agri) to the concerned officers

despite Zonal instructions.

Further, the loan applications received at the

Branch were sanctioned by him without the

recommendations of Field Officer/Manager (Agri).

6. He claimed false T.A. Bill viz. Rs.150/-for going to

various villages on 15.05.1999 as included in his

monthly Bill for Rs.1,275/- for the month of May

1999 and at the same time, also claimed Rs.275/-

as TA Bill for 15.05.1999 for visiting Zonal Office,

3

Agra thus he lodged false Bill for his official work."

A copy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent

no.1 and the respondent no.1 was given an opportunity to

submit his representation against the findings of the

enquiry officer. The appointing authority then considered

the enquiry report and the records of the enquiry and the

submissions made by the respondent no.1 and imposed the

penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 15.05.2001.

The respondent no.1 filed an appeal against the order of the

appointing authority, but the appellate authority dismissed

the appeal by order dated 09.03.2002. The respondent no.1

filed a Review Petition, but the reviewing committee also

dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 20.12.2002.

3. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed Civil

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2003 and the High

Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of dismissal

passed by the appointing authority as well as the order

passed by the appellate authority and, as the respondent

no.1 had already retired from service, directed the appellant

4

to release his arrears of salary as well as the post retirement

benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there

were charges of grave misconduct against the respondent

no.1 and four of the six charges had been proved in the

enquiry. He submitted that the findings of the enquiry

officer on the four charges proved against the respondent

no.1 were based on relevant material and these findings had

also been confirmed by the appellate and reviewing

authorities. He submitted that contrary to the settled

position of law that the High Court, while exercising its

powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution, should not interfere with the finding in the

departmental enquiry so long as it is based on some

evidence in the impugned order, the High Court has

interfered with findings in the enquiry and has held that the

respondent no.1 was not guilty of the charges. By the

impugned order, the High Court has also quashed the order

of dismissal and has directed release of the arrears of salary

and post retirement benefits of the respondent no.1.

5 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other

hand, supported the impugned order of the High Court and

submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order

of the High Court. He further submitted that in any case

the respondent no.1 had retired from service on 31.01.2000,

and though the charge-sheet was served on him on

22.12.1999 when he was still in service, the enquiry report

was served on him by letter dated 28.09.2000 and he was

dismissed from service on 15.05.2001 after he had retired

from service. He submitted that after the retirement of the

respondent no.1, the appellant had no jurisdiction to

continue with the enquiry against the respondent no.1. In

support of this contention, he cited the decision of this

Court in UCO Bank and Another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor

[(2007) 6 SCC 694].

6. We have perused the decision of this Court in UCO

Bank and Another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) and we find

that in the facts of that case the delinquent officer had

already superannuated on 01.11.1996 and the charge-sheet

was issued after his superannuation on 13.11.1998 and

this Court held that the delinquent officer having been

6

allowed to superannuate, the charge-sheet, the enquiry

report and the orders of the disciplinary authority and the

appellate authority must be held to be illegal and without

jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, on the other

hand, we find that the charge-sheet was issued on

22.12.1999 when the respondent no.1 was in service and

there were clear provisions in Rule 19(3) of the State Bank

of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, that in case

disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of service

have been initiated against an officer before he ceased to be

in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any

of the rules or the provisions of the rules, the disciplinary

proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director,

be continued and concluded by the authority by which the

proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the

rules as if the officer continues to be in service, so however,

that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose

of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. We

may mention here that a similar provision was also relied on

behalf of UCO Bank in UCO Bank and Another v. Rajinder

Lal Capoor (supra) in regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank

7

Officers Employees Service Rules, 1979, but this Court held

that the aforesaid regulation could be invoked only when

the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated prior to the

delinquent officer ceased to be in service. Thus, the

aforesaid decision of this Court in UCO Bank and Another v.

Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) does not support the respondent

no.1 and there is no merit in the contention of the counsel

for the respondent no.1 that the enquiry and the order of

dismissal were illegal and without jurisdiction.

7. Coming now to the contention of the appellant, we find

that the enquiry officer has found that charges no. 1, 2, 4

and 6 had been proved against the respondent no.1. While

arriving at these findings on the four charges proved against

the respondent no.1, the enquiry officer has considered a

number of documents marked as exhibits and has also

considered the documents produced on behalf of the

respondent no.1 and marked as exhibits. The findings of

the enquiry officer were based on evidence and the

appointing authority had agreed with the findings of the

enquiry officer. This Court has held in State of Andhra

Pradesh and Others v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723):

8 "The High Court is not constituted in a

proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution a Court of appeal over the

decision of the authorities holding a

departmental enquiry against a public servant:

it is concerned to determine whether the

enquiry is held by an authority competent in

that behalf, and according to the procedure

prescribed in that behalf, and whether the

rules of natural justice are not violated. Where

there is some evidence, which the authority

entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry

has accepted and which evidence may

reasonably support the conclusion that the

delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is

not the function of the High Court in a petition

for a writ under Article 226 to review the

evidence and to arrive at an independent

finding on the evidence."

8. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate

authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and

so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are

supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-

appreciate the evidence and come to a different and

independent finding on the evidence. This position of law

has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which

we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the

High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at

the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry

9

officer are not substantiated by any material on record and

the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1 do not

constitute any misconduct and that the respondent no.1

was not guilty of any misconduct.

9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High

Court and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.

.............................J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

.............................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

.............................J.

(H. L. Gokhale)

New Delhi,

October 13, 2011.