- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Bank Of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1 was working as the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India (Sirsaganj Branch). A charge-sheet dated 22-12-1999 alleged six acts of misconduct, including irregular opening and operation of a savings account, misappropriation of ₹1,00,000, violation of zonal instructions on handing over agricultural portfolios, and submission of a false travelling-allowance claim. An enquiry officer’s report dated 28-09-2000 found Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 proved. After considering the report and the respondent’s representation, the appointing authority dismissed him from service on 15-05-2001. His departmental appeal (09-03-2002) and review petition (20-12-2002) were rejected.
Respondent 1 then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2003 before the Allahabad High Court. On 12-04-2006 the Division Bench quashed the dismissal, declared him not guilty, and directed release of arrears and post-retirement benefits (he had superannuated on 31-01-2000). The present appeal challenges that High Court judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State Bank of India could lawfully continue and conclude disciplinary proceedings after the employee’s retirement when the charge-sheet was issued before superannuation, in view of Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992.
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, erred in re-appreciating evidence and overturning concurrent departmental findings that were supported by “some evidence.”
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State Bank of India)
- Four grave charges were duly proved in a properly conducted enquiry; the findings rest on relevant material and were affirmed by appellate and reviewing authorities.
- The High Court exceeded its limited writ jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and declaring the respondent not guilty despite the existence of “some evidence.”
Respondent 1 (Employee)
- Supported the High Court’s judgment, asserting no infirmity in its conclusions.
- Contended that after his retirement on 31-01-2000 the bank lacked jurisdiction to continue the enquiry; relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 | Disciplinary proceedings initiated after an employee’s superannuation are void; continuation clause can operate only if the proceedings begin before retirement. | Distinguished: in the present case the charge-sheet was issued before retirement, and Rule 19(3) expressly permits continuation; hence the decision did not aid the respondent. |
| State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 | High Court under Article 226 is not an appellate authority over departmental enquiries; it may intervene only to ensure competency, procedural compliance and presence of “some evidence.” | Relied upon to hold that the High Court erred by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the respondent’s jurisdictional objection based on Rajinder Lal Capoor. It held that the precedent was inapplicable because, unlike in that case, the charge-sheet here was served before retirement. Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers Service Rules expressly allows continuation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated while the officer is still in service; therefore the enquiry and the dismissal order were legally competent.
Turning to the appellant’s grievance, the Court examined the enquiry officer’s report. It noted that numerous documentary exhibits—including those produced by the respondent—were considered, and that the appointing authority had concurred with the findings. Relying on the principle in S. Sree Rama Rao, the Court reiterated that judicial review is confined to verifying procedural regularity and the existence of some evidence. Since such evidence existed, the High Court had no jurisdiction to re-assess it and to declare the respondent not guilty.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order dated 12-04-2006 set aside.
Consequences: the dismissal order dated 15-05-2001 and subsequent departmental decisions stand restored, negating the High Court’s directive to pay arrears and post-retirement benefits. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of writ courts in reviewing disciplinary findings and clarifies that banks may continue proceedings initiated before an officer’s retirement under the enabling service-rule provision. No broader precedent beyond these reaffirmations was created.
A.K Patnaik, J.— This is an appeal against the order dated 12-4-2006 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ramlal Bhaskar v. SBI.
2. The facts very briefly are that Respondent 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 report dated 28-9-2000 holding that four out of the six charges were proved against Respondent 1.
3. Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 which were proved against Respondent 1 in the enquiry are as follows:
“Sl. No. Charges 1. He authorised opening of Savings Bank Account No. 18776 on 31-3-1999 in the name of ‘Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayake Gane’ a religious body at 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 rupees one lakh on 4-8-1999 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 Sl. No. P&C/483 dated 8-12-1998 advised the branch regarding posting of Field Officer/Manager (Agri) at the branch and handing over the relative charge to the persons concerned. He intentionally did not make arrangements for handing over the charge of Field Officer/Manager (Agri) to the officers concerned 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 TA bill viz. Rs 150 for going to various villages on 15-5-1999 as included in his monthly bill for Rs 1275 for the month of May 1999 and at the same time, also claimed Rs 275 as TA bill for 15-5-1999 for visiting Zonal Office, Agra thus he lodged false bill for his official work.”
4. A copy of the enquiry report was served on Respondent 1 and Respondent 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 Respondent 1 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 15-5-2001. Respondent 1 filed an appeal against the order of the appointing authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 9-3-2002. Respondent 1 filed a review petition, but the reviewing committee also dismissed the review petition by order dated 20-12-2002.
5. Aggrieved, Respondent 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 Respondent 1 had already retired from service, directed the appellant to release his arrears of salary as well as the post-retirement benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were charges of grave misconduct against Respondent 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 Respondent 1 were based on relevant material and these findings had also been confirmed by the appellate and reviewing authorities.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 1.
8. The learned counsel for Respondent 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 Respondent 1 had retired from service on 31-1-2000, 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 28-9-2000 and he was dismissed from service on 15-5-2001 after he had retired from service. He submitted that after the retirement of Respondent 1, the appellant had no jurisdiction to continue with the enquiry against Respondent 1. In support of this contention, he cited the decision of this Court in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694.
9. We have perused the decision of this Court in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 and we find that in the facts of that case the delinquent officer had already superannuated on 1-11-1996 and the charge-sheet was issued after his superannuation on 13-11-1998 and this Court held that the delinquent officer having been 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 Respondent 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 whom 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.
10. We may mention here that a similar provision was also relied on behalf of UCO Bank in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 in Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 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 v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 does not support Respondent 1 and there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for Respondent 1 that the enquiry and the order of dismissal were illegal and without jurisdiction.
11. Coming now to the contention of the appellant, we find that the enquiry officer has found that Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6 had been proved against Respondent 1. While arriving at these findings on the four charges proved against Respondent 1, the enquiry officer has considered a number of documents marked as exhibits and has also considered the documents produced on behalf of Respondent 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.
12. This Court has held in State of A.P v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7)
“7. … 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.”
13. 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 reappreciate 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 reappreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations levelled against Respondent 1 do not constitute any misconduct and that Respondent 1 was not guilty of any misconduct.
14. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
Alert