STATE BANK OF INDIA VS A.G.D. REDDY

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE 

• Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for  certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed by him when he  was working as Field Officer of the Mahadevapura Branch of the  Bank. 

• He extended the credit limits and permitted excess drawings, did  not report to the controlling office the excess drawings permitted. 

• Respondent had recommended and obtained credit limit to m/s  rajeshwari enterprises and the did not submitted the control  return. 

• As part of the charge, it was further alleged that he purchased  agricultural land ad-measuring 21.36 acres and got it registered in  his name for a nominal amount, using the influence of one Shri  Ramamurthy of M/s Bindu Enterprises who are enjoying credit  facilities with the branch and he failed to declare to the Bank the  purchase of immovable property as per the extant instruction. 

ISSUES 

o Whether penalty should be imposed or not? 

o Whether approvalable evidence of investigation officer is evitable  or not?

ARGUMENTS 

▪ Appellant:- respondent had allegedly committed the misconduct  of the credits of the bank. And he didn’t inform the controlling  officer about the same. And on the other hand bought immovable  property from that credit. 

▪ Respondent:- He didn’t accept the allegations and denied all the  allegations of the bank. 

JUDGEMENT 

❖ The Court said that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the  respondent, by his negligence, did not stipulate anything  regarding taking of collateral security in his recommendation to  the Branch Manager and, as such, the advance could not be  collaterally secured by creation of equitable mortgage cannot be  said to be perverse or based on no evidence. The Court held that  on non-submission of control form, the transgression of the area  of operation and non-declaration of the immovable property and  certain other charges, the order of penalty can be sustained. 

❖ The Court said that the scope of judicial review against a  departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. The Court  explained that the scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the  decision- making process is legitimate and to ensure that the  findings are not bereft of any evidence

❖ The Court held that it cannot be said that the report was based on  no evidence or that it was perverse. The Court said that the Single  Judge had transgressed the limits of judicial review in setting aside  the enquiry proceedings and the punishment imposed. The Court  

found the Division Bench to be non- sustainable for confirming the  Single Judge’s judgment. 

❖ Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the  impugned orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench, Thus, the  Court maintained the penalty as imposed in the order of the  Appointing Authority. 

CONCLUSION 

We have no hesitation in holding that both the learned Single Judge and  the Division Bench were in error in allowing the writ petition and  interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the decision of the  Disciplinary Authority, the order of the Appointing Authority and the  decision of the Appellate Authority”, concluded the Court. 

REFERENCES 

➢ https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcemen t.php?WID=16730#:~:text=The%20penalty%20imposed%20in%20 this,officer%20under%20suspension%20from%2018.08 ➢ https://www.the 

laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=003202218000&title =state-bank-of-india-vs-a-g-d-reddy

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.

Admin