Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others - Appellants
Versus
Ajai Kumar Srivastava - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 32067-32068 of 2018)
Decided On : 05-01-2021
.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - State Bank of India Act, 1955 – Offence of Cheating , Criminal Conspiracy – Charged - Appellant is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 - Respondent joined service as a Cashier/Clerk in Mumfordganj Branch -While on duty, a misconduct was committed by him for which he was placed under suspension in first place by order dated and later charge-sheet dated was served upon him detailing seven charges of misappropriation of funds which he had committed in discharge of his duties as an employee of Bank - Charge-sheet dated was served, respondent delinquent submitted his reply dated denying all charges - Enquiry officer was thereafter appointed by competent authority to hold enquiry in terms of Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank - Respondent had participated in disciplinary enquiry and enquiry officer after holding enquiry in accordance with procedure prescribed under Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank furnished his report of enquiry dated - Whether he wants to say anything regarding prosecution documents to which he had replied in negative, he had also stated that he will submit his defence brief within a week, for receipt of prosecution brief – Held, Disciplinary/appellate authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing order dated disciplinary authority had taken note of record of enquiry, including self contained enquiry report dated and his prima facie opinion dated which was made available to respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated- Court need to emphasize that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee - It requires the employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and he deals with money of depositors and customers and if it is not observed, confidence of public/depositors would be impaired - It is for this additional reason, Court are of opinion that High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside order of dismissal of respondent dated- Appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed - Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves an employee of a statutory banking institution who was charged with multiple serious misconducts, including misappropriation of funds and fraudulent transactions (!) (!) .
The disciplinary proceedings included a detailed enquiry where the employee participated and was provided with an opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer's report found some charges not proved while others were proved based on documentary evidence (!) (!) .
The disciplinary authority reviewed the enquiry report, recorded its reasons for disagreement on certain charges, and upheld the findings on others, ultimately imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The authority also considered the employee's objections and provided detailed reasons for its decision (!) (!) (!) .
The employee filed departmental appeals and writ petitions challenging the disciplinary and appellate orders. The courts examined whether the enquiry process was fair, whether natural justice principles were followed, and whether the findings were supported by evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the disciplinary process must be conducted by a competent authority, with adherence to natural justice, and based on evidence that a reasonable person could rely upon. The courts are limited to reviewing procedural fairness and the legality of the process, not the merits of factual findings unless there is a manifest error or perversity (!) (!) (!) .
It was noted that the disciplinary authority recorded its reasons for disagreement with the enquiry officer's findings, especially regarding charge no. 1, and served the employee with the record of enquiry and reasons, providing him an opportunity to respond. The employee's objections were considered, but the courts found no procedural violation that vitiated the order (!) (!) .
The courts observed that the guilt on charges 2-7 was supported by sufficient documentary evidence, and the penalties imposed were proportionate and justified. The order of dismissal was upheld, and the courts clarified that even if some charges were not proved, the proven charges could independently justify the penalty (!) (!) .
The courts reaffirmed the principle that judicial review is limited to procedural correctness and natural justice, and not to reappraise the evidence or substitute their own findings on factual issues unless there is a clear violation or no evidence at all (!) (!) .
The importance of honesty, integrity, and discipline in banking work was underscored, emphasizing that breach of these principles damages public confidence. The courts highlighted that the order of dismissal was justified given the nature of misconduct and the evidence supporting it (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts allowed the appeals, set aside the high court's judgment, and confirmed the disciplinary order of dismissal, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural fairness and the sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary proceedings (!) (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13th September, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, the instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of the appellant Bank.
3. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the purpose are that the appellant is a statutory body incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. The respondent joined service as a Cashier/Clerk in Mumfordganj Branch Allahabad on 07th December, 1981. While on duty, a misconduct was committed by him for which he was placed under suspension in the first place by order dated 14th August, 1995 and later the charge-sheet dated 11th April, 1996 was served upon him detailing seven charges of misappropriation of funds which he had committed in discharge of his duties as an employee of the Bank.
4. It may be relevant to note that for the selfsame misappropriation of bank’s money by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the Branch where he was posted, a criminal case was also instituted against him for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. After the charge-sheet dated 11th April, 1996 was served, the respondent delinquent submitted his reply dated 08th May, 1996 denying all the charges. The enquiry officer was thereafter appointed by the competent authority to hold enquiry in terms of Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank. The respondent had participated in the disciplinary enquiry and the enquiry officer after holding enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Bipartite Settlement applicable for award staff of Nationalized Bank furnished his report of enquiry dated 22nd May, 1999 to the disciplinary authority holding that Charge No.1 was not proved, at the same time, held the Charge Nos. 2 to 7 proved against him. In his report dated 22nd May, 1999, it has been noticed by the enquiry officer that respondent delinquent stated in the course of enquiry that he neither wants to say anything about the prosecution documents nor he wants to ask any question to the presenting officer and did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his statement in defence regarding fictitious credits in his account which was the allegation against him for misappropriation of funds of the Bank and the fact remains that all the allegations levelled against the respondent were supported with the documentary evidence duly audited by the Bank.
6. The extract of the charges with the documents on which the enquiry officer placed reliance and held the charge to be proved after discussion in detail against the respondent are reproduced hereunder:
| Allegation/Charge No.1: | |
| On 16.02.1994, saving bank account no.12215 of Shri I.S. Verma (an account holder) was debited with Rs.1,09,600/and part amount of Rs.89,600/was credited to his current account No. P51 without the consent of account holder. | |
| To prove the above allegation/charge, the presenting officer produced the following documents: | |
| PEX-1 | Debit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.1,09,600.00 relating to savings bank account No.12215 of Shri I.S. Verma. |
| PEX-2 | Current account credit voucher dated 16.02.1994 for Rs.89,600 pertaining to current account No. P15 of Shri Srivastava (E.P.A). |
| PEX-3 | Ledger sheet of current account No. P51. |
| The Charge is not proved. | |
| Allegation/Charge No.2: | |
| On 25.03.1994, Shri Srivastava entered into a conspiracy with some staff members at the Branch with a view in defraud the bank and accordingly a fake debit was raised in branch clearing general account through schedule No.4 for Rs.4,87,300 and this amount was first posted in saving | |
(1) Dismissal--Standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, same charges and evidence may lead to different results in....
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Disciplinary proceedings were upheld as valid; delay and procedural flaws were insufficient to overturn dismissal for misconduct.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordan....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness; evidence must meet the preponderance of probabilities standard in administrative contexts, not beyond a reason....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
