Point of Law: interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 5.6.2015, 16.12.2015 and 29.7.2016 (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the reviewing authority.

2. The disciplinary authority on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, imposed penalty of removal from service and the said order of removal from service was affirmed in appeal as well as in review.

3. The disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner for alleged acts of omission and commissions of serous irregularities committed by him during his tenure as Branch Manager, Derapur Branch between 2.1.2012 to 27.4.2013. Sum and substance of the charge against the petitioner was gross irregularities in sourcing, disbursement and follow up of credit facilities sanctioned to 8 borrowing units and 20 Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna and the Chief Minister Rojgar Yojna Loans and thus, exposing bank to substantial loss of Rs. 2,95,45,786/- plus interest.

4. The disciplinary inquiry was held under the provisions of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (for short ‘Rules 1992’). Charge sheet contains 26 allegations against the petitioner. The inquiry officer found 22 allegations proved, 3 were not proved and 1 was partly proved. After submissions of the charge sheet, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit his response to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, passed the impugned punishment order dated 5.6.2015 of removal from serviced.

5. Thereafter, petitioner filed a departmental appeal on 1.8.2015. The appellate authority gave a detailed consideration to the submissions made by the petitioner and affirmed the punishment order of removal from service vide order dated 16.12.2015. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a review petition on 1.2.2016 against the appellate order. The reviewing committee consisting of three officers, dismissed the review petition vide impugned order dated 29.7.2016. The reviewing committee also held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was commensurate with the gravity of the lapses committed by the petitioner and there was no scope to modify the punishment order.

6. Sri. Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Rule 68(2) of Rules, 1992, the presenting officer was reacquired to prove the charges against the petitioner. The presenting officer did not prove the charges during the course of inquiry. The documents relied upon in the departmental inquiry, were not proved by examining the witnesses in support of them. He has, therefore, submitted that when the documents were not proved, which were relied upon in support of the charges, whole inquiry got vitiated.

7. It has been further submitted that besides the petitioner, other employees were also charge-sheeted in respect of the same allegations. However, other employees of the bank were let off with minor penalty. It has also been submitted that one Sri. S.L. Nathan was the sanctioning authority of the loans, but he was let off with minor penalty. He has relied upon Rule 68(6) of Rules, 1992 to submit that when there were allegations against the two officers, joint inquiry should have been conducted, but in this case separate inquiries were held for the petitioner as well as for S.L. Nathan.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there was no financial loss caused to the bank with respect to the defaulter borrowers and, therefore, the charge of causing financial losses to the tune of Rs. 2,95,45,786/- is wholly untenable and the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that nature of departmental inquiry is a quasi judicial proceeding