Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Jayant V. Selmokar - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 40501 of 2016
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 16 and 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 403 and 409 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 248(1) - Disciplinary Proceedings - Imposed penalty of 'compulsory retirement'- Prayer declaring findings of 5th respondent Inquiry Authority Disciplinary Proceedings of 4th Respondent and consequential Order of 3rd respondent Appellate Authority communicated through letter as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, mala fide not only Violative of Principles of Natural Justice but also Violative of Articles 16 and 21 of Constitution of India - Held, A review of legal position would establish that disciplinary authority, and on appeal appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider evidence with a view to maintain discipline - They are invested with discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view magnitude or gravity of misconduct - High Court/Tribunal, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty - Court opines that judgement relied upon by Counsel for Petitioner has no relevance to facts of present case and judgments relied upon by Counsel for Respondents squarely apply to present case - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner filed this petition seeking Writ of Mandamus with prayer as follows :
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows :
(b) Later the extension center on 05.03.2005 was converted into full fledged branch and the petitioner was posted as 1st incumbent officer who is responsible for all the affairs of the branch.
(c) Petitioner vide his letter dated 01.06.2006, brought to the notice of the Assistant General Manager, Region-I Nizamabad certain irregularities of the branch employees and the petitioner was instructed to settle the matter.
(d) As per the directions of the Assistant General Manager, Region INizamabad, the petitioner tried to settle as per the banking procedure the issue but the employees of the branch evaded the settlement and hence the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 09.06.2006 to the General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad (i.e., 4th respondent herein) but reasons best known to the respondents, no action had been initiated.
(e) The petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad (i.e., 4th respondent herein) as 1st Incumbent Officer at S.B.H Collectorate Branch, Nizamabad vide circular GB 2004/05/105 dated 05.03.2005.
(f) The Petitioner as per H.O. Circular instructions DEP/6 OF 1984 dated 19.05.1984, the petitioner is authorized to open accounts only at Collectorate Complex Branch, Nizamabad and vide the H.O. Circular OPD 2002.03-3 dated 09.12.2002 unlimited signing and passing powers are approved by the Bank Board of Directors. Vide H.O. Circular GB 93-94/30 dated 26.08.2003, I.B.I.T Transaction are permitted when there is delay in transfer of funds from one branch to another branch of S.B.H.
(g) The petitioner had been suspended from the service vide suspension orders dated 17.07.2006 were issued to the petitioner without conducting any preliminary enquiry or any complaint from the Bank Authorities or employees as required under Banking Service Regulations.
(h) A charge sheet dated 21.02.2007 had been issued to the petitioner on 06.03.2007 levelling 7 imputations/charges. Disciplinary Proceedings had been initiated dated 16.04.2007 granting 15 days time for submission of explanation. The petitioner had asked for certain documents for finishing the reply but the same had been denied.
(i) The Inquiry was conducted in a hasty and malafide manner from 24.04.2007 to 27.04.2007 by the presenting officer and the Inquiry officer concealing the actual records submitted the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on 07.06.2006 stating that all the imputations are established.
(j) The Disciplinary Authority on 09.08.2007 issued a show cause notice calling for explanation with reference to earlier show cause notice dated 05.07.2007 which had not been communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner had sub
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Disciplinary authorities must act independently, and reliance on external recommendations can violate principles of natural justice, leading to invalid proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere 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
