Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
State Bank of India and Another – Appellants
Versus
K.S. Vishwanath – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3490 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2022
(A) Service Law – Dismissal – Fraudulent withdrawal of money while working as Deputy Manager in Bank – Charge has been held to be proved by Enquiry Officer on appreciation of entire evidence on record including deposition of Management witnesses – Management has been able to establish and prove complicity of delinquent officer – High Court has dealt with and considered writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India challenging decision of Bank/Management dismissing delinquent officer as if High Court was exercising powers of Appellate Authority – High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India has reappreciated evidence on record which otherwise is not permissible – High Court has committed grave error in interfering with order passed by disciplinary authority dismissing respondent-delinquent officer from service – From findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support conclusion that Delinquent officer is guilty of charge – Standard of proof which is required in a criminal case and that of disciplinary proceedings is different – Fact that criminal court acquitted respondent by giving him benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect validity of finding of guilt or consequential punishment – 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 two proceedings – It cannot be said that order of dismissal is disproportionate to misconduct proved – Order passed by Management dismissing respondent-delinquent officer on proved charge and misconduct hereby restored. (Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scope of Judicial review – High Court is not a court of appeal over decision of authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant – If there is some evidence, that authority entrusted with duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support conclusion that delinquent officer is guilty of charge, it is not function of High Court in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to review/reappreciate evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on evidence. (Para 7.3)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 by which the High Court has dismissed the said Writ Appeal No.4220 of 2011 preferred by the appellant – employer – SBI and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by Single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directing Bank to pay to the delinquent officer consequential benefits without back wages, appellant SBI– employer has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appeal and not interfering with the judgment and order passed by Single Judge which interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing respondent – delinquent officer from service and the judgment and order passed by Single Judge hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 4220 of 2011 by which the High Court has dismissed the said Writ Appeal No. 4220 of 2011 preferred by the appellant-employer/SBI and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directing the Bank to pay to the delinquent officer consequential benefits without back wages, the appellant SBI-employer has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
“(i) On 6th August, 1996, you got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance documented and by producing the same at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bangalore made the officials threat believe them to be genuine and part with Rs. 10 Lacs as cash remittance to SSI Peenya II stage Branch and you failed to account for the same in the books of SSI Peenya II Stage Branch.
(ii) You have made substantial investments in Kisan Vikas Patra and Special Term Deposits with SBI Staff Cooperative Credit Society, Bangalore during the period 23.09.1998 to 08.06.1988 and you failed to make proper disclosures of the same in the Assets and Liabilities Statements submitted by you.
Your act stated at (i) above has resulted in the Bank incurring an undue loss of Rs. 10 Lacs.”
2.1 Before the Enquiry Officer, 41 documents and 9 witnesses were produced by the management to prove the charges. After considering the statements/depositions of management witnesses PW-1 to PW-7 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charge no. 1 as proved and charge no. 2 as partly proved. The Appointing Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of dismissal from services which came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
2.2 Thereafter the respondent-delinquent officer filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. By the time the writ petition came to be disposed of, the respondent-delinquent officer attained the age of superannuation. By judgment and order dated 22.03.2011 the learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment and directed the Bank to give all the consequential benefits to the original writ
(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 main legal point established in the judgment is that courts can only interfere with disciplinary proceedings if there are violations of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations, and....
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....
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
The court emphasized the bank's loss of confidence in the appellant and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, citing the appellant's failure to follow banking procedures and exercise honest....
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....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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
