Petitioner challenged dismissal from SBI services, citing lack of appointing authority powers, procedural violations, and prior criminal acquittal. Court held e-circular valid, hearing provided, and acquittal is no bar to disciplinary action. Writ dismissed.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3528 of 2013
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India Through Sahayak Mahaprabandhak, Kenzriya Bharti Avam Padonnati Vibhag, Corporate Kendra, Tulsiyani Chembers, First Floor Paschim Ving, 212, Free Press Gernel Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021., Maharashtra
2. State Bank Of India, Through The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar Pin 494001 Police Station Jagdapur District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Appealiya Pradhikar, Regional Karyalaya, State Bank Of India, Chhetriya Karyalaya, Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdapur District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4. Disciplinary Authority, Chhetriya Prabandhak, Chhetriya Karyalaya, Dharmapura Road, Jagdalpur District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
| For Petitioner |
: Mr. H.B. Agrawal , Senior Advocate along with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Advocate | |
| For Respondents | : Mr . P.R. Patankar, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
1 1.07.2024
“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 12-03-2013 and it’s appellate order dated 14-06-2013 respectively Annexure P-1 and P-2 and the respondents may kindly be ordered to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages.
10.2 That the respondents may kindly also be ordered to refund the petitioner Rs. 1,90,000-00 recovered from him with interest @ 12% p.a.
10.3 That any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be allowed.”
2
Assistant Customer Relationship Associate at the relevant time in the year 201213 at Dantewada. A complaint was received on 29.03.2012 from one account holder namely, Smt. Chameli Bai to the effect that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/was withdrawn from her bank account though she never withdrew such amount. The aforesaid complaint was addressed to the Regional Manager. Other complaints were also received with regard to financial irregularity and an explanation was sought from the petitioner vide memo dated 16.06.2012. The petitioner filed his reply on 25.06.2012 and admitted his negligence, later, he was placed under suspension vide Order dated 24.07.2012 by the Regional Manager and thereafter article of charges was issued on 06.09.2012. The charges were:-
(i) While working at a similar window counter on 25.02.2012, the petitioner made two entries in the cash register in the name of Mr. Ashok Kumar Buradh bearing account No. 31219428315 regarding payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- but in his account, there was only one entry and when the memo was issued to the petitioner by Branch Manager, the amount was deposited.
(ii) the petitioner deposited various amounts in his savings account No. 30472451157 and on many occasions, he deposited the amount in the account of his mother Smt. Padmani Chandradev and father B.R. Chandradev, which were not known to the known source of income.
(iii) the petitioner withdrew Rs. 1,00,000/- from the account of Smt. Chameli Bai W/o Sitaram and verified her thumb impression.
(iv) While working on deputation at C.S.E.B., Bodhghat Branch, two cash remittances of Rs. 5,00,000/-, each was brought to Dantewada Branch and one entry of Rs. 5,00,000/- was passed in unidentified credit account and a draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- was prepared in the name of Rishabh Enterprises, Dantewada.
3
Officers were appointed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant General Manager (AGM) of the Branch. The department examined one Mr. Sundi, who, at the relevant time, was posted at the Bodhghat Branch.
c. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on the same set of facts and evidence and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority. Thus, he would pray to allow the petition and quash the order impugned.
4
Counsel. Mr. Patankar submitted that the e-circular was issued on 12.01.2012 after the creation of the post of DGM, Banking and Operation, and some changes were made concerning disciplinary authority structure. He further submitted that in the Branches headed by DGMs, the appointing/disciplinary authority would be the Assistant General Manager (AGM) and the appellate authority would be the DGM of the Branch. He also submitted that though the appointing authority of the petitioner was Regional Manager, by virtue of the e- circular dated 12.01.2012, the Assistant General Manager was conferred with the power of disciplinary authority with effect from 01.11.2011.
5
that he committed a mistake as the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Smt. Chameli Bai, therefore, the disciplinary authority has passed a well-reasoned order and the same has been affirmed by the appellate authority also. He stated that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State Bank of India Vs. K.S. Vishwanath, reported in AIR 2022 SC 2531, Deputy General Manager and others vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in 2021(2) CGLJ 425, Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal reported in (1994) 1 SCC 541 and R.P. Kapur v. Union of India reported in (1964) 5 SCR 431.
11. He would also submit that there is limited scope of interference in departmental enquiry.
12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the documents placed on the record.
13. With regard to the first issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel, though the petitioner was appointed by the Regional Manager, an e-circular was issued by the department and the structure of disciplinary authority was changed vide Circular dated 12.01.2012 with effect from 01.11.2011. According to this circular, the power was conferred upon the Assistant General Manager of the Branch to act as disciplinary authority, therefore, this ground raised by Mr. Agrawal appears to be misconceived.
14. With regard to the opportunity of hearing, from the reply filed by the respondents, it is quite vivid that a show notice was issued on 19.02.2013 which
6
was replied to by the petitioner on 27.02.2013. From a perusal of the reply dated 27.02.2013, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has admitted his guilt with regard to issue No. 3 and it is stated that due to a mistake, he withdrew the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the bank account of Smt. Chameli Bai. He also admitted that the amount was refunded to her account; therefore, this ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also fails.
15. With regard to the acquittal of the petitioner from criminal charges, acquittal in criminal charges has no nexus with the departmental proceeding. In the criminal case, the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas; the principle of preponderance of probability applies in case of disciplinary authority. The department has proved the guilt of the petitioner by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence and further, the petitioner himself has admitted his guilt with regard to charge No. 3.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.S. Vishwanath (supra) in para 8 to 11 held as under:-
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent – delinquent officer from service.
The High Court has erred in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which as such were on appreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer recorded hereinabove, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent – delinquent officer that as he has been acquitted in a criminal court and therefore, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. From the judgment and order passed by the criminal court it appears
7
that he has been given the benefit of doubt. Even otherwise the standard of proof which is required in a criminal case and that of the disciplinary proceedings is different. The fact that the criminal court acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings
10. Now the next question which is posed for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appointing authority was justified in dismissing the delinquent officer from service is concerned looking to the seriousness of the charge proved of misappropriating the sum of Rs.10 lakhs and not depositing the same with the Bank, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the charge and misconduct held to be proved. At this stage even the modus operandi adopted by the delinquent officer also deserves the consideration. As per the evidence on record, he went along with the false and fabricated document dated 06.08.1996 along with another person and he introduced that person as a new cashier and he ensured that the voucher was not signed by him but singed by the other person who was introduced by him as a new cashier. Therefore, he saw to it that there is no evidence on record that he actually received the money. This shows the criminal mind/conduct on the part of the delinquent officer. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/management had committed any error in dismissing the respondent – delinquent officer from service.
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appeal and not interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the respondent – delinquent officer from service and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and set aside.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra) in
para 25 to 29 observed and held as under:-
25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decisionmaking 3 1994(6) SCC 302 4 1995(1) SCC 216 5 1995(6) SCC 749 6 2017(1) SCC 768 7 2020(9) SCC 471 process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in
8
any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhopal Singh Panchal (supra) held inter alia that the mere acquittal does not entitle an
9
employee to reinstatement in service. The acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. As such, the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourable acquittal”.
19. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
$iddhant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary officer had the power to dismiss the petitioner after changes in disciplinary authority structure via e-circular.
Whether natural justice was violated by denying opportunity of hearing during the departmental proceedings.
Whether acquittal in the criminal case entitled the petitioner to reinstatement in departmental services.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Bank of India Vs. K.S. VishwanathFollowed¶16
State Bank of India Vs. K.S. Vishwanath, AIR 2022 SC 2531 · Who else cites this
Deputy General Manager and others vs. Ajai Kumar ShrivastavaFollowed¶17
Deputy General Manager and others vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava, 2021(2) CGLJ 425
Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Bhopal Singh PanchalFollowed¶17
Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶17
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, (1964) 5 SCR 431 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakesh Kumar Chandradev
State Bank Of India
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
