2020 Supreme(Mad) 1245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
M. Rajagopal & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 15463 & 16246 of 2014 & M.P. No. 2 of 2014
Decided On : 07-12-2020

The standard of proof and admissibility of proof in a disciplinary proceedings cannot be equated to the standard of proof and admissibility of proof required in a criminal trial, which is conducted strictly on the basis of the provisions codified in the enactment.

Headnote:

DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - SBI OFFICERS’ SERVICE RULES - RULE 19 (3) - CONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - VAGUENESS OF CHARGES - LIKELY LOSS - QUANTIFICATION - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Chief Manager and Deputy Manager of the respondent Bank, were subjected to disciplinary proceedings for certain delinquencies in the discharge of their official duties relating to approval of loan. The enquiry officer held that some of the charges framed against the petitioners stood proved, while some were partly proved and the others were not proved. Based on the enquiry report, further explanation was called for from the petitioners and on receipt of the same, being not satisfied, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner in W.P. No.15463/14, while the petitioner in W.P. No.16246/14 was inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Against the said orders of punishment, the petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate authority, who confirmed the orders of punishment. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present petitions have been preferred.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner and whereupon, the disciplinary authority has independently applied his mind while imposing the punishment. The Court further held that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is also just and reasonable considering the nature of delinquency, no sympathy can flow from this Court for such an act. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioners is in no way shocking the conscience of this Court or disproportionate to the delinquency and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings can continue beyond the period of retirement? 2. Whether the charges framed against the petitioners are vague? 3. Whether the non-suspension of the petitioners pending enquiry reveals that the charges levelled against them were not of serious nature? 4. Whether the documents were not marked in the presence of the petitioners in the enquiry? 5. Whether the stand of the petitioners that even assuming the charges stood proved, would only lead to likely loss to the Bank and, therefore, the charges themselves were premature, can be accepted? 6. Whether the petitioner in W.P. No.16246/14 can take shelter citing that he was simply following the directions of his superior officer and that he is only the recommending authority and not the sanctioning authority is wholly untenable? 7. Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioners is disproportionate to the delinquency?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings can continue beyond the period of retirement by way of deeming the delinquent to be in continuous service for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings alone. 2. The Court held that the charges are specific and the annexures dovetails the details of the various misconducts committed by the petitioners, which would be evident from the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the charges are vague does not merit acceptance. 3. The Court held that mere non-suspension of an employee during disciplinary proceedings would not lead to absolute absolvence of the petitioners from the rigour of the charges. 4. The Court held that the stand of the petitioners that the documents were not marked in their presence in the enquiry is refuted by the respondents and it is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that those documents were in the custody of the petitioners to which they were privy and party and the documents speak for itself and it is not necessary that the documents should be proved in a manner as provided under the Evidence Act, as the standard of proof and admissibility of proof in a disciplinary proceedings cannot be equated to the standard of proof and admissibility of proof required in a criminal trial, which is conducted strictly on the basis of the provisions codified in the enactment. 5. The Court held that the stand of the petitioners that even assuming the charges stood proved, would only lead to likely loss to the Bank and, therefore, the charges themselves were premature, cannot be accepted on the face of the record as the sanction granted to the various loans were in utter disregard to the various well laid procedures, thereby, exposing the bank to a huge loss and subsequent litigations, which cannot always be said to result in tangible result. 6. The Court held that the petitioner in W.P. No.16246/14 cannot take shelter citing that he was simply following the directions of his superior officer and that he is only the recommending authority and not the sanctioning authority is wholly untenable for the simple reason that it is only on the basis of the records and recommendations given by the said petitioner, the superior officer, on further scrutiny of the documents, approves the loan. Therefore, burden equally shifts on the shoulders of both the petitioners and one cannot sly away by pointing a finger on the other. 7. The Court held that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is also just and reasonable considering the nature of delinquency, no sympathy can flow from this Court for such an act. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioners is in no way shocking the conscience of this Court or disproportionate to the delinquency and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are devoid of merits and, accordingly, the same are dismissed.