Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J.
Braj Kishore Thakur, Son of Late Ramnandan Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank Of India, Through The Chairman State Bank Of India and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19441 of 2015
Decided On : 24-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bipin Krishna Singh, Adv., Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
Disciplinary authorities must provide cogent reasons for their decisions, and mere allegations without evidence do not justify punitive actions against employees.
Headnote:(A) State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules - Rule 50(4) and Rule 67(f) - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner challenged the punishment of reduction in pay stages for alleged negligence leading to a fraud of Rs. 12.50 crores - The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to provide cogent reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry officer's findings and did not substantiate the allegations against the petitioner - The CBI's clean chit to the petitioner was not considered by the appellate authority - The court ruled that the punishment was disproportionate and set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and reviewing authority. (Paras 5, 12, 13, and 14)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that disciplinary authorities must apply their minds to the evidence and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when imposing penalties. (Paras 8 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bank officer, was accused of negligence leading to a significant fraud. He was suspended and faced disciplinary action, resulting in a reduction of pay stages. The enquiry officer found some charges partly proved, but the disciplinary authority imposed a harsher penalty without adequate justification.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority did not provide sufficient reasoning for its decision and that the CBI had cleared the petitioner of wrongdoing.
Issues: The main issues included whether the disciplinary authority properly applied its mind to the evidence and whether the punishment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority's failure to substantiate allegations and provide cogent reasoning rendered the punishment unjust.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Heard Mr. Bipin Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs;
(a) for quashing of the order dated 31.10.2012 containing in letter number VIG/Gen/GPS/180 signed by the General Manager & Appointing Authority whereby and where under the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of 'Reduction of five (5) stages in time scale of pay for a period of five (5) years with further direction that the officer will not earn increments during this period and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment in terms of Rule 67(f) of SBI Officer Service Rules as also that 'the period of suspension will be treated as such, i.e. not on duty;
(b) for quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority containing in letter bearing number A&R/HR/4985 dated 29.10.2013 whereby and where under the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the General Manager & Appointing Authority;
(c) for quashing of the order of Reviewing Authority as conveyed vide letter bearing number RBO/GEN/477/24 dated 22.05.2015 as though submission of review petition is not a statutory requirement but the petitioner had availed the same in order to get justice within the organizational set-up but the same authority also has failed to apply its mind and has refused to interfere with the punishment order;
(d) for considering the petitioner for promotion to next higher grade since when it became due as has been granted to other similarly circumstanced officer in the same case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service of State Bank of India as Agriculture Assistant in December 1989 after being successful in the written competitive examination and interview. The petitioner was promoted to officer cadre in Junior Management Grade Scale 1 after written examination and interview in March 2008. The petitioner was posted at ADB Muzaffarpur of the respondent-bank as Field Officer when a fraud of Rs. 12.50 Crore was perpetrated by miscreants on 10.05.2011 by hacking the system and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide letter number DGM-O&C/NW-I/Muz-31 dated 25.05.2011 and explanation was called from the petitioner vide letter dated 15.06.2011 on four counts :
i) You allegedly reset the password of Sri Sudhakar Sinha (User ID-4193008) for his being maker of the above referred fraudulent transaction.
ii) You did not ensure the basic instructions of Bank for maintaining secrecy of password due to which this incident was allowed to happen under your User ID- 3428419.
iii) You did not ensure compliance of mandatory instructions for VVR Checking on regular basis.
iv) You did not ensure whether your user ID was deactivated during the period when you were on leave or deputation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was behind bars on 23.05.2011 on the basis of FIR No.176/2011 dated 11.05.2011 so the petitioner could submit his reply to the explanation letter vide his letter dated 06.02.2012 only after he was released on bail and in his reply he denied the aforesaid charges. The respondent-authorities did not take cognizance of cogent and valid explanation of the petitioner and a charge-sheet under cover of letter dated 19.04.2012 was served on the petitioner wherein following four allegations were levelled against the petitioner.
1. You unauthorisedly did resetting of the password of Sri Sudhakar Sinha (User ID-4193008), maker of fraudulent non-home RTGS transaction of Rs.12.50 crores on 10.05.2011, who was on deputation on that day. You thus facilitated perpetration of a fraud of Rs.12.50 crores.
2. You grossly violated the Bank's IT Policy and IS Security Policy as well as laid-down instructions thereby exposing the Bank to grave r
