Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amitava Roy, J.
Rehan Ahmed Laskar - Appellants
Vs.
State Bank of India and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 83/2002
Decided On : 16.02.2005
STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS' SERVICE RULES - RULE 68(2)(III) - RULE 68(2)(IX)(B) - RULE 68(2)(XI) - RULE 68(2)(XII) - STATE BANK OF INDIA PENSION RULES - RULE 14 - STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 - SECTION 43(1) - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 123 - SECTION 162 - [KEYWORD] - PRIVILEGE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - INQUIRY - DOCUMENTS - PENALTY - DISMISSAL - SERVICE BENEFITS - PENSION - GRATUITY - LEAVE ENCASHMENT - TRAVEL EXPENSES - BANK'S SHARE OF PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION - MALICE - DISCRIMINATION - PROPORTIONALITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR HEARING - PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - STANDARD OF PROOF - NO EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - CONSTRUCTION OF RULES - PRECEDENTS - BINDING NATURE - RATIO DECIDENDI - RELEVANCE - APPLICABILITY - DISTINGUISHABLE - OVERRULED - FOLLOWED - APPLIED]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a General Manager (Commercial Banking) of the State Bank of India, was served with a show cause notice alleging irregularities in the sanction and conduct of advances of Kothari Group of Units. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defense denying the charges. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Authority and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with effect from the date of retirement. The petitioner's appeal before the Central Board of Directors was also rejected. Consequently, the petitioner's pensionary benefits and Bank's contribution of Provident Fund were withheld.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by the denial of the petitioner's request for copies of certain documents and refusal of inspection thereof, which were relevant to the charge and necessary for preparing his defense. The Court found that the respondent Bank failed to establish that the non-supply of the documents did not prejudice the petitioner in defending himself. The Court also held that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated by the denial of the petitioner's request for copies of certain documents and refusal of inspection thereof? 2. Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, which were framed in exercise of powers under Section 43(1) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, are binding on the Bank and have a statutory flavor. Rule 68(2)(ix)(b) mandates that the charged officer be supplied with copies of relevant documents necessary for preparing his defense. The denial of such documents prejudices the petitioner in preparing and conducting his defense and has a pervasive invalidating effect nullifying the proceedings. 2. The penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner, considering the nature of the charges, the petitioner's role as a member of the Committee, and the absence of any evidence of willful negligence or fraud.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside and quashed the impugned order of penalty and confirmation thereof in appeal. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential service benefits under Bank's Rules and relevant administrative instructions.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The petitioner assails the penalty of his dismissal from service and the decision of the appellate authority confirming the same and seeks an appropriate writ and/or direction to the respondent authorities to release all consequential service benefits to him. The petitioner, who was scheduled to retire with effect from March 31, 1998, following the disciplinary proceeding under challenge stands dismissed with effect from that date.
2. I have heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, senior advocate assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Phukan, senior advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Sharma, senior advocate and Mr. R.K. Bhatra, advocate for the respondent Bank.
3. To better comprehend the rival contentions, the pleaded facts have to be taken note of. The petitioner who had joined the service of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') in the early sixties was posted as General Manager (Operations), North Eastern Circle of the Bank with its local Head Office at Guwahati in December, 1995. Following the third organizational re-structuring of the Bank, the post of General Manager (Operations) was abolished and was re-designated as General Manager (Commercial Banking). The petitioner's post was accordingly designated as such with geographical jurisdiction over the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh with effect from February 1, 1996. As the General Manager (Commercial Banking), the petitioner also became a member of the Circle Credit Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee') of the Bank which comprised of the following members :
(1) Chief General Manager - chairman
(2) General Manager
(Development and Personal Banking) - Member
(3) General Manager
(Commercial Banking) - Member
(4) Circle Credit Officer
(in the rank of Deputy General Manager) - Member
4. As per the prevailing guidelines of the Bank all loans and other financial proposals for the amount of Rs. 2 crores and above upto Rs. 5 crores were to be entertained at the level of General Manager (Commercial Banking), while others above Rs. 5 crores upto 7.5 crores were to be dealt with by the Committee.
5. In terms of the procedure adopted, a loan proposal of above Rs. 2 crores was required to be initiated at the Branch level of the bank on receiving such proposal from a customer and was to be sent to the Assistant General Manager (Commercial Banking) with necessary recommendations. The Assistant General Manager (Commercial Banking) was to process the same by way of additional appraisal and thereafter forward the same along with his additional appraisal to the Committee in case the proposal was beyond Rs. 5 crores. In case the proposal was below Rs. 5 crores, the same was to be placed before the General Manager (Commercial Banking) for disposal. The proposal forwarded to the Committee was to be first submitted before the Circle Credit Officer who in turn was to place it before the Committee and any decision thereof on the proposal was to be on the basis of unanimous approval of all the members of the Committee. After the approval, the matter was to be transmitted to the Assistant General Manager (Commercial Banking) routed through the Circle Credit Officer being accompanied by the minutes of the committee. The Committee was also required to forward a copy of its minutes to the Central Office of the Bank at Mumbai. The Assistant General Manager (Commercial Banking) on receiving the approval/sanction of the Committee was to prepare the sanction letter addressed to the Deputy General Manager (Zonal office) for conveying the sanction to the branch concerned. On the basis of the sanction, the branch from which the proposal originated was to act accordingly. The control reports in respect of each sanction of loan by the Committee was to be prepared in the form of Memorandum for the Committee of the local Board headed by the Bank Chairman to be submitted by the Assistant
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
