SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 57

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 263 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34118 of 2011]
Decided on : 14-1-2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-co-operation by charged officer in departmental enquiry - effect.

Headnote:(a) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - State Bank of India Officers Service Rules - Rule 68(2) - Charged officer not co-operating in enquiry - Objections against non-compliance of procedure ought to have been raised before the I.O. raised before the High Court - I.O. entitled to hold ex parte enquiry. (Para 17)

        (b) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Charge sheet - Need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined - Charge sheet is not expected to be a record of evidence. (Para 18)

        (c) Service Law - Ex parte enquiry - Non-examination of witnesses - If the charges are borne out from documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges. (Para 20)

        (d) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Standard of proof - Disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21)

        (1972) 4 SCC 618; (1999) 8 SCC 90 - Relied upon

        (e) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Charged officer walking out of enquiry - Cannot complain about violation of natural justice. (Para 22)

        (1994) 2 SCC 615; AIR 1957 SC 82 - Relied upon

        (f) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review in service matters - Order of dismissal passed after full-fledged enquiry - Remedy of appeal not availed - Interference by High Court - Not proper - High Court does not act as an appellate authority. (Para 23)

        (2006) 7 SCC 212; AIR 1963 SC 1723 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        The Bank Officer was charged with 12 charges.

        He walked out of the enquiry despite afforded many opportunities.

        He was found guilty of ten charges out of 12 and two were partly proved.

        He was dismissed.

        High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the dismissal, filed without exhausting alternative remedy, on grounds of natural justice.

       Finding of the Court:

        Respondent was rightly dismissed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.:-Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the legality of the judgment of the High Court setting aside an order dated 11.03.1999 passed by the State Bank of India dismissing the charged officer (respondent) from service in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The charged officer, herein, while he was functioning as the Deputy Manager of the Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 15.02.1995 by the Joint Manager (Operations) [Disciplinary Authority] stating that while he was posted as officer JMGS-I at Government Business Branch, Kanpur, and Accountant and officiating Branch Manager at Kalpi Road (Kanpur) Branch from 21st May 1985 to 20th October 1987 and 21st October 1987 to 22nd May 1991 respectively had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Official and highly prejudicial to the Bank’s interest in deliberate violation of Rules 50(3), 50(4), 50(9) and 60(2) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (in short ‘the Service Rules’).

4. Altogether, 12 charges were framed against him. Charges are given under for easy reference:

Charge No.1

You raised a number of spurious entries by debiting LOCL/LIT A/c at Kalpi Road Branch, Kanpur and afforded fictitious credit to the Current Account No.7/12 in the name of Shri O.S. Srivastava and Savings Bank Account No. 9095 in the name of Shri Surinder Kumar. Both the account holders were fictitious/non-existent. Although the account opening form in the case of Shri O.S. Srivastava is not traceable, it is apparent from the account opening form of Shri Surinder Kumar, that the account was allowed/authorized by you. It shows your alleged involvement in the fraud.

Charge No.2

You granted and opened under your authentication Demand Loan Accounts in the name of Fictitious/non-existent persons against pledge of fictitious NSCs with a view to avail yourself the Bank’s funds unauthorisedly and in an illegal manner.

Charge No.3

You availed a conveyance loan for Rs.78,000/- for purchase of a Car. The proceeds of the loan were credited to your account on 28.05.1988 and were withdrawn by you in cash the same day but you did not purchase the vehicle within a month of availment of loan as per Bank’s instructions.

Charge No. 4

(i) You got issued a number of cheque books on your savings bank and current account, although only few cheque leaves were used by you. The requisite cheque book requisition slips or your specific requests for issue of cheque books are not available. Thus, your act of getting issued several cheque books to yourself without exhausting the earlier ones, is highly irregular on your part and in contravention of the Bank’s laid down instructions

(ii) You utilized a cheque leaf bearing no. 422276 for drawing on your savings bank account no. 5603 with Kalpi Road Branch although the cheque book containing this cheque leaf was issued to some other account holder and has been recorded as “surrendered and destroyed” in the Branch books. Thus, you have taken unauthorized possession of the cheque which was incorrectly shown as destroyed in the Branch books.

(iii) A few Savings Bank Cheque books have been found to be missing from the branch as no record for issue of these cheque books to account holders is there in the Branch Books.

Charge No.5

You deliberately withheld DD Purchase documents received at the Branch by not responding these by debit to the relative accounts, with a view to providing undue benefits to the customers at the bank’s cost.

Charge No.6

You misutilised the Bank’s funds by negotiation of fake instruments as DD on Patna. These DDs were returned unpaid subsequently and the amounts were made good by you either in cash or through your savings bank account.

Charge No.7

You negotiated cheques drawn on local branches at Kanpur as DD to yourself in utter disregard to Bank’s laid down instruc











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top