IMPORTANT POINT
In a service matter it is impermissible for High Court to re-appreciate evidence which had been considered by Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules — Rule 32(4) — Order of dismissal from service after the charge of misconduct was found proved in departmental inquiry against respondent — High Court on re-appreciation of evidence reversed the findings of Inquiry Officer and set aside orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority — High Court was of opinion that unless there was evidence to show that petitioner had knowledge of the intention on part of persons introduced by him in Bank, petitioner could not be said to have committed misconduct as alleged by Bank — Appeal — It was impermissible for High Court to re-appreciate evidence which had been considered by Inquiry Officer — Its jurisdiction was circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural errors, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice — Findings of High Court on facts also ran to the teeth of evidence on record — From facts collected and report submitted by Inquiry Officer, active connivance of respondent was also eloquent enough to connect the respondent with issue of TDRs and over draft in favour of person introduced by him — High Court erred in interfering with findings of Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority — Impugned judgment deserved to be set aside and that of Disciplinary Officer to be restored.
       Held : Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. (See Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (appellant) v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (respondent) (2006) 2 SCC 373 at page SCC 379). Reverting to the facts of the case, it appears that the respondent was charged with misconduct of having conducted himself in violation of the Rule 32(4) of the Service Rules. Rule 32(4) reads:
       "32(4) Every employee shall, at all times, take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank official."
       After noticing the said provision and re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court was of the opinion that unless there is evidence to show that the petitioner had knowledge of the intention on the part of the persons introduced in the Bank, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any misconduct as alleged by the Bank. The High Court has also considered the official evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer in course of the inquiry and observed that the statements recorded by the Inquiry Officer had no where stated that the petitioner had knowledge of the intention of Bidaye and Angane to enjoy the overdraft facility by misusing TDRs belonging to someone else. The High Court also observed that there is no evidence to show that on all the occasions when the TDRs were issued the petitioner was present in the Jogeshwari Branch. Ultimately, the High Court has concluded its finding in paragraph 9 of the impugned Judgment as under:
       "9. Ample evidence could have been led to prove the complicity of the petitioner with Bidaye and Angane. Even in the FIR lodged with the police, there is not even a suggestion that the petitioner was in anyway involved in the commission of fraud by Bidaye and Angane. In these circumstances, we are firmly of the opinion that this is a case of no evidence of misconduct as alleged by the bank, which is not proved at all and therefore order of punishment is unsustainable. In the result the petition succeeds and it is allowed."
       It is impermissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence which had been considered by the Inquiry Officer a Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court, on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record. (Paras 6 to 9)
       From the facts collected and the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, which has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, active connivance of the respondent is eloquent enough to connect the respondent with the issue of TDRs and overdrafts in favour of Bidaye.(Para 12)
       We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court was erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority by acting as a court of appeal and re-appreciating the evidence. (Para 13)
       As already said, the respondent being a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.(Para 21)
       In the view that we have taken, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 2.8.2002 is, hereby, set aside. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and that of the Appellate Authority are restored.(Para 23)

JUDGMENT

H.K. Sema, J. — The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 2nd August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the imposition of penalty of removal inflicted upon the respondent, who is a bank officer, preceded by an inquiry, is set aside with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits including that of back wages, to be paid within a period of three months.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The respondent was working as an officer under the appellant bank and at the relevant time he was posted as Manager, Personnel Banking Division, Palghar Branch. Sometime in June, 1986 the respondent introduced one Shri Kishor Bidaye and Shri D.B. Angane to the Branch Manager Jogeshwari (W) Branch. The respondent brought said Shri Bidaye to the Branch Manager and got a current account opened in the name of Shri Bidaye. He had also introduced the said current account by giving his old Andheri address at Bombay as the address of Bidaye. A cheque was issued in favour of the State Bank of India, which was to be invested in the name of the Trust/Board. However, the respondent insisted that the funds were meant for Bidaye and Angane and thereby, induced the Branch Manager to accept the Trust funds as Term Deposits and issue TDRs in the names of Bidaye and Angane. The respondent also ensured sanctioning of overdraft facility against the STDRs. so issued. It is also alleged that the respondent exerted pressure to grant overdraft on the same day of remittance of funds and emphatically stated that it would be his responsibility if anything went wrong. A complaint was made by a Trust regarding Term Deposit Receipts being issued in the name of Bidaye and granting overdraft facilities to him on the basis of such TDR.

3. The appellants bank, thereafter, initiated a Departmental Inquiry. The following charges were framed against the respondent:

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE TOGETHER WITH THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS BASED SHRI R.D. PUNDE (UNDER SUSPENSION) FRAUD AT JOGESHWARI (W) BR. CHARGE

CHARGE-1

You, when posted at Palghar Branch as Manager P.B.D. negotiated with a fraudulent intention to extend credit facilities against deposits to be received from Trusts to Sarvashri Kishore Bidaye and D.B. Angane at Jogeshwari (W) Branch and induced the Branch Manager, Jogeshwari (W) branch to accept Trust Funds in Terms Deposits and also caused issue of TDRs in the individual names with the funds received for investment in their own names (Trusts). You ensured that STDR were issued in individual names and that overdrafts were sanctioned there against although you were well aware that it was in violation of Banks prescribed norms, procedures, instructions on the subject. You assisted the said persons despite knowing their fraudulent motives. You thus acted dishonestly and in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official violating Rule No. 32(4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.

GROUNDS ON WHICH BASED

(i)You negotiated with the Branch Manager, Jogeshwari (w) Branch on behalf of Sarvashri Kishor Bidaye and D.B. Angane about the credit facilities to be extended to them against deposits to be received and vouched for bonafides and creditworthiness of the said individuals and assured to recover at short notice loans granted there against. Accordingly you introduced Shri Kishor Bidaye and caused his current Account to be opened in the books of Jogeshwari (w) Branch knowing fully well that Shri Bidaye is a defaulter borrower of our Pimpri Branch. You also gave your residential address as the legal address of Shri Bidaye.

You visited Jogeshwari (w) Branch on various dates accompanied by others including the said persons and caused issue of STDRs in the name of Shri Bidaye/Shri Angane against clearing cheques received from the under noted Boards. You also prevailed upon the Branch Manager/Manager P.B.D. to sanction overdraft limit threagainst to the said persons.

Cheque

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 725

Cases Referred (8)