| Citation | 2023 INSC 766 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal |
| Petitioner | State Bank of India through Deputy General Manager |
| Respondent | A.D.G. Reddy |
| Date of Judgement | August 24,2023 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justices J.K. Maheshwari & K.V.. Viswanathan (Division) |
| Judgement Status | Allowed. |
FACTS:
- This appeal came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to resolve the question of correctness of the judgement of the Division bench of the Karnataka High court at Bangalore dated 20.10.2010. This particular case revolves around the “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage from that the person was previously holding.” Whereby the period spent by the delinquent officer has been treated as suspension from 18.08.1990 till his date of reinstatement as suspension only.
- Being the aggrieved party, the State Bank of India has filed this present appeal contending that the courts below have transgressed the limits of Judicial Review. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent alleging misconduct committed by him while was appointed as the Field Officer of the Mahadevapura Branch of the Bank. Such allegations in the chargesheet were; that from the Branch Manager he recommended and obtained sanction, credit limits to various units, permitted excess drawings on an ongoing basis, he did not conduct periodical inspections as per the extant instructions.
- As a part of charge, it was further alleged that the respondent has purchased agricultural land in October, 1987 of 21.36 acres and got it registered in his name for a nominal amount by using the influence of a person of M/S Bindu Enterprises. It was alleged that he placed himself under pecuniary obligations to the party.
- Further, the respondent denied the allegations resulted into the appointment of an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after completion of the proceedings, analysing all oral and documentary evidence and found the respondent guilty for some of the charges. With these findings, the I.O. submitted his report on 23.08.1993 and the records of the enquiry to the Disciplinary Authority (DA). The DA examined and analysed the report the enquiry officer, where some of the proceedings differed from that of the enquiry officer. Later on, considering all the above, the appointing author passed an order on 31.01.1995 in which the Appointing authority imposed a penalty of “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” provided under Rule No. 49(e) of the SBI( Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further to treat him under suspension.
- The learned single judge classified the common heads under Charge 1 being:
- conduct of periodical inspection;
- Non- Submission of control forms and;
- Area of operation.
ISSUES:
- Whether the scope of Judicial Review in the matter of Disciplinary proceedings is wide or narrow?
- Whether the order calls for any interference of the court?
- Where the penalty imposed by the Appointed Author shock the conscience of the Court?
ARGUMENTS:
The petitioner argued that the court below this court has transgressed the limits of Judicial Review. According to the petitioner, the court below in characterizing have erred the orders of the Disciplinary authorities as perverse.
The respondent contended that, the present case has no “no evidence and factual truth” in it and also the enquiry officer based only on his personal knowledge has recorded the findings of guilt without any evidence in record to corroborate with it.
JUDGEMENT:
The court while showing the onus of proof held that, it is for the respondent to show, as to what is his response to the allegations. It is well settled that during a disciplinary proceedings, the question of burden of proof would depend upon what kind of explanation is being forwarded by the respondent and also on the nature of the charge, as was enumerated in the case of Orissa Mining corporation and anr. v. Ananda Chandra Prusty[1]
After examining the three heads of charges laid down by the single judge in detail, the court moves toward explaining the scope of Judicial Review in disciplinary proceedings. The court said that, it can not be said that the report on which the proceedings and findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appointing authority is based relied upon no evidence or are perverse.
The counsel for the respondent contended that the disciplinary authority should arrive at its conclusion after definite proof pointing out the guilt of the delinquent and an innocence should not be punished for any such crime which he has not committed and in all human probability, leave no such doubt which might prove him innocent. The court was not satisfied with the cases cited down to support the above contention of the learned counsel.
The court concluded after going through different cases cited by learned counsels, that it is well settled that the scope of Judicial Review is very limited and not wide against a departmental enquiry proceeding. Here, the scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the process to take any decision by the court is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. The court said that, In this case, the learned single judge transgressed the limits of Judicial Review in setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the punishment imposed.
The law is well settled that the order of penalty can only be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the court to consider whether those grounds hold enough weightage with the authority in imposing the punishment. In this case, the punishment can be allowed to be sustained even if the charges held not proved to be severe as because this court only laid down the law that unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any if those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside.
The appellant put reliance upon the case of Disciplinary Authority cum-Regional manager and ors. v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik[2], a test is mentioned whether the delinquent employee has observed the prescribed norms and regulations of the banks or not. Since the charged alleged on the employee of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage with regard to M/S Saraswathi Fabricators are corroborated with evidences, the court do not think that the penalty is of such nature which can shook the conscience of the court.
For the above reasons, this court of appeal has no reason to hesitate while holding both the learned single Judge and the Division bench were erroneous to allow the writ petition and interfering with all the concerned authorities. The court thus, set aside the order of the learned single judge and that the division bench and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent and accordingly the appeal was allowed.
REFERENCES:
https://main.sci.gov.in/case-status
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16730
This article is written by Deepanshi Srivastava of Shambhunath Institute of Law, Legal intern at legal Vidhiya.
[1] (1996) 11 SCC 600, para 6
[2] (1996) 9 SCC 69
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
