State Bank Of India vs Ramadhar Sao

2025 INSC 1010 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10680 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.6722 of 2023)

STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

RAMADHAR SAO … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants1

aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 2 in

appeal 3 filed by them. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal

filed by the Bank was dismissed against the order 4 passed by the Single

Bench of the High Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2025.08.20 18:39:55 IST Reason: 1 For short, ‘the Bank’ 2 High Court of Judicature at Patna 3 LPA No.1283 of 2018 4 Dated 16.05.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013

Page 1 of 15

2. The respondent had approached the High Court by filing

writ petition 5 challenging order dated 07.12.2012 passed in statutory

appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority, by which his

punishment was reduced from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’

with superannuation benefits.

3. Briefly the facts available on record are that the respondent

joined the Bank as a messenger in the year 1997. In April 2008,

complaints were received against the respondent for taking bribe for

coordination in sanction of loans. Vide notice dated 15.11.2008, the

Bank called upon the respondent to explain his absence from duty and

that he had been executing some loan documents at his residence and

bank branch as well.

4. Not being satisfied with the reply of the respondent, the

Bank issued a formal Memo of Charge to the respondent on 05.01.2010

regarding allegation of his being a conduit for getting the loans

sanctioned and taking illegal gratification. The respondent, on

12.02.2010, submitted his reply to the chargesheet. On 10.03.2010, the

Disciplinary Authority appointed inquiry officer to enquire into the

truthfulness of the allegations made against the respondent. On

04.10.2010, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding the

5 C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013 Page 2 of 15 respondent guilty of acting as a middleman for sanction and

disbursement of loans at the branch by taking illegal gratification and

his unauthorized absence from duty from 20.04.2008 to 25.04.2008 was

also proved. Copy of the report was supplied to the respondent and

show cause notice was issued on 29.12.2010, before imposition of

penalty. He appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2011

claimed innocence and sought forgiveness for any mistake committed.

5. Vide order dated 08.01.2011, accepting the report of the

Inquiry Officer, punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed

upon the respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent

preferred statutory appeal. Taking a compassionate view, the

Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2012, reduced the penalty

from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation

benefits. Still not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the

respondent preferred writ petition6 before the High Court. The same

was allowed by the Single Bench. The order of punishment was set

aside and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back

wages. The Single Bench also granted liberty to initiate fresh

proceeding against the petitioner therein including all other persons

involved in the said misconduct. Aggrieved against the order passed

6 C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013 Page 3 of 15 by the Single Bench, the Bank preferred intra-court appeal 7 which was

dismissed8 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved against

the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

Division Bench of the High Court has failed to take notice of the facts of

the case correctly. Reference was made to the show cause notice

issued to the respondent, which was the initial notice. By treating the

same as the chargesheet for initiating disciplinary proceedings, the

matter was examined. In fact, subsequently disciplinary proceedings

were initiated on an independent chargesheet detailing out the

allegations. It is a case in which the Appellate Authority had already

taken a compassionate view while reducing the penalty from

‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. The

Single Bench, while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, wrongly

emphasized that as per the allegations there were other officers

involved and only the respondent was singled out while others have

not been punished. In fact, two other officers, the Branch Manager and

Field Officer involved with the respondent were punished with

removal from service.

7 L.P.A. No.1283 of 2018 8 Dated 14.12.2022

Page 4 of 15 6.1 It was further argued that the scope of interference in a writ

petition against the departmental proceedings is not like an appeal. In

judicial review, only procedural aspect could be examined. It is not

the case of the respondent that there was any violation of principles of

natural justice as he participated in the inquiry and cross-examined the

witnesses. The customers of the Bank, in whose cases the respondent

had coordinated with other bank officials for sanction of loan, have also

deposed against him. Their loan accounts had become irregular. The

respondent has already attained the age of superannuation on

30.06.2022. If the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the report of the

Inquiry Officer, detailed reasons are not required to be recorded. It is

only when the report is not accepted. In support of the arguments,

reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in SBI v.

Ajai Kumar Srivastava 9 and Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia

Bank and Others 10.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the respondent has been made a scapegoat in the case.

He was merely a class IV employee at lowest level. His primary job was

printing of passbooks. He had no authority either to file, process or

sanction any loan. If any irregularity was there, for that senior officers

9 (2021) 2 SCC 612: 2021 INSC 7 10 (2021) 3 SCC 806: 2021 INSC 66

Page 5 of 15 in the Bank could be held responsible and not the respondent. It had

come on record in cross-examination of PW-6/Dilip Kumar Mehta, the

field officer in the Bank, that the loan documents are to be filled up by

the field officer. It came in the evidence of PW-7/Ajay Demta that the

work and behaviour of the respondent had been satisfactory, and he

was one of the dependable staff members. It is evident from a letter

dated 20.09.2010, i.e. after the alleged incident, the respondent was

promoted to the post of Assistant. This shows that his work and conduct

was good.

7.1 It was further argued that the Single Bench had given liberty

to the Bank to initiate fresh inquiry. The said order was passed on

16.05.2018. More than seven years have passed and the Bank could

have initiated fresh inquiry instead of taking the litigation further. It

was submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Single

Bench as well as Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal

deserves to be dismissed. Even now, to put closure to the litigation,

seeing the plight of the respondent who was a class IV employee, the

relief granted to him can be moulded, may be by reducing the back

wages.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant referred record.

Page 6 of 15

9. Some facts in brief have already been noticed in the earlier

part of the judgment, hence we do not deem it appropriate to narrate

the same again. What emerges from the documents is that a show

cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Bank on 15.11.2008

seeking his explanation on following two grounds:

“(a) You were on leave for 5 days upto 19.04.2008, but did not turn up to the Branch till the completion of the investigation i.e. 28.04.2008. There was no notice to the Branch in this regard.

(b) It has been alleged that you have been executing loan documents at your residence and at Bank Branch also.”

10. In response to the said letter, no satisfactory explanation

was submitted by the Respondent. Chargesheet was issued to the

respondent by the Bank on 05.01.2010 alleging that there were serious

irregularities in his discharge of duties in the Bank. He acted as a

middleman in sanction of loans. The relevant paras thereof are

extracted below:

“Charge Sheet:

During the year 2007-2008, when you were working as a messenger in Agriculture Development Branch, Ramnagar, there were serious irregularities in the sanction and disbursement of loans to the customers mentioned in the following table in the branch, in which there are serious allegation of your involvement.

Page 7 of 15 Sl. No. Name (Mr) Account no. Loan Amount (Rs) 01 Fakruddin 30287568733 50,000.00 02 Bali Yadav 30337461081 40,000.00 03 Arun Kumar 30310977071 50,000.00 Mani Mishra 04 Chandsi Shah 30358112002 40,000.00 05 Gharbharan Prasad 30358122134 50,000.00 06 Krishna Prasad Ram 30358122098 50,000.00

For your dereliction of duty and for acts & omissions, show cause is issued with purpose that why not departmental proceeding in terms of service rules of award staff and bi- partite settlement dated 10.04.2002, under provisions of para (5), sub-para (J & K), amounting to gross misconduct, should be initiated against you for the below-mentioned charges:

a) You were allegedly acting as a middleman in loan sanction and disbursement at the branch. You are charged of taking illegal gratification from a customer of the Bank (Account No. 30287568733, 30337461081, 30310977071, 30358112002, 30358122134, 30358122098) in lieu thereof.

b) You allegedly used to take loan proposals at branches as well as at your residence from the above mentioned customers (i.e. Account No. 30287568733, 30337461081, 30310977071, 30358112002, 30358122134, 30358122098) for documentation, after which only the sanction was possible.

c) You remained absent from the branch without permission from 20.04.2008 to 25.04.2008 during the course of

Page 8 of 15 investigation of irregularities, so as to deliberately evade the process of investigation.”

10.1 As emerged from the record, the respondent filed reply to

the same vide letter dated 12.02.2010, however, finding the same to be

unsatisfactory, Inquiry Officer was appointed.

11. During the course of inquiry, the respondent denied the

charges and sought to defend his case. He even selected a defence

counsel. The Inquiry Officer recorded evidence of multiple witnesses.

The loanees of the Bank appeared as departmental witnesses in the

Inquiry.

11.1 PW-1/Fakruddin stated that he was forced to pay ₹ 5000/- to

the respondent for getting his loan sanctioned without even proper

documents. Similar were the statements made by PW-2, PW-3. PW-4

and PW-5, all of whom had stated about giving several thousands to

respondent in order to get their loans sanctioned. PW-6/Dilip Kumar

Mehta, Field Officer merely stated about the normal procedure

followed for filling the loan applications and not what was done in the

case in hand. The aforesaid process of inquiry clearly established the

fact that due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent

during the course of inquiry.

Page 9 of 15 11.2 After the inquiry report was submitted, following due

process a show cause notice along with inquiry report was sent to the

respondent, which was duly received by him. He appeared before the

Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2011 and submitted as follows:

“I am innocent. Knowingly or unknowingly whatever mistake I have made, please forgive me. One of my son is handicapped and one of my daughter is of marriageable age. I have always served the Bank with utmost satisfaction. I don’t have any other source of income.”

11.3 The aforesaid statement established the fact that indirectly

the respondent had admitted what he had done. He pleaded mercy.

As it was a case of corruption, the Disciplinary Authority imposed

punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent.

11.4 The respondent preferred statutory appeal. He reiterated

what he had stated earlier during the course of inquiry. Still, finding

that it was a case of gross misconduct, the Appellate Authority, by

taking a compassionate view, reduced the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to

‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. In fact, the

respondent could be satisfied with a light punishment imposed upon

him. However, he challenged the aforesaid order before the High

Court.

Page 10 of 15

12. The apparent reason assigned by the Single Bench is that

the respondent was a class IV employee. He did not have any power

to sanction loan. The Bank should have proceeded against other

officers, which it did not do. It was further opined that the orders were

passed against the respondent on conjunctures and surmises. There

was no application of mind by the Disciplinary or the Appellate

Authority. The Division Bench of the High Court, in an appeal filed by

the Bank, has not referred to correct facts and upheld the order.

Instead of referring to the chargesheet, initial show cause notice was

extracted in the impugned order. The merits were not touched and

only issue discussed was the objection raised by the appellants

regarding maintainability of the writ petition filed by the respondent

before the High Court.

13. The legal position with regard to interference in inquiries

or the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of

powers of judicial review is well-settled. This court in SBI’s case

(supra) observed as under:

“22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of

Page 11 of 15 correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court...” (emphasis supplied)

13.1 Law on the issue, that disciplinary authority is not required

to record reason in detail if report of inquiry officer, is accepted.

Reference can be made to judgment of this Court in Boloram

Bordoloi’s case (supra). Relevant para thereof is extracted below:

11. ... it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders impugned are devoid of reasons.”

(emphasis supplied)

Page 12 of 15

14. It is not the case of the respondent that there was violation

of principles of natural justice. Meaning thereby, due process was

followed during the course of inquiry. The Inquiry Officer appreciated

the evidence led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they

had paid money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their

loans despite their documents being deficit. At the time of recording

of his statement, PW-6/Dilip Kumar Mehta, Field Officer stated that all

the accounts were irregular.

14.1 The opinion expressed by the Single Bench that the finding

recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were

based on conjuncture and surmises, cannot be legally sustained. It is

for the reason that if entire evidence is perused, there was no error in

the findings record. These were based on preponderance of

probabilities and strict proof of evidence beyond reasonable doubt

was not required.

14.2 Another reason assigned by the Single Bench is that the

respondent has been made the scapegoat and other senior officers

have not been proceeded against, is also wrong as the stand taken by

the Bank is that the Branch Manager and the Field Officer against whom

allegations were leveled along with the respondent, were removed

from service. It was further opined by the Single Bench that the

Page 13 of 15 respondent being a Class IV employee had no role to play in

sanctioning and disbursement of loan. The proved charge against the

respondent was that he was working as a conduit in getting the loans

sanctioned. We are referring to the findings of the Single Bench as

Division Bench did not record any reason in detail.

14.3 Further, the fact which has been recorded by the

Disciplinary Authority, when respondent appeared in response to a

show cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards the

direction where he apparently admitted his guilt and had sought

mercy. The words stated by him have been extracted in para ’11.2’.

In fact, leniency was shown by the Appellate Authority by reducing the

penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation

benefits.

15. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, the

impugned orders passed by the Single Bench and the Division Bench

of the High Court cannot be legally sustained. The same are liable to

be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The order passed by the Appellate

Authority dated 07.12.2012 imposing punishment of ‘removal from

service’ with superannuation benefits stands restored.

16. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

Page 14 of 15

17. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of

with no order as to costs.

.........................................J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

..........................................J. (MANMOHAN) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 20, 2025.

Page 15 of 15