$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10201/2016 RAMESH CHANDRA SUMAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shanti Prakash, Adv.

versus GENERAL MANAGER (NW-III)/(DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Sangal & Ms. Richa Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 24^th July, 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellate order dated 5^th November, 2014, and the order dated 4^th June, 2015 passed by the Review Committee. By the disciplinary order, the Petitioner was visited with the penalty of “censure” coupled with a monetary penalty of INR 20,000/-.

Factual Background

2. The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Chief Manager at the Mainpuri Branch of the State Bank of India, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh. During his tenure, certain issues arose in relation to measures adopted by the branch in respect of accounts of Shri Harsh Chet and Shri Praful Chet, who, apart from being borrowers of the Bank, were also landlords of the branch premises. The Bank proceeded under the framework of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Act, “SARFAESI Act” in relation to the said borrowers.

3. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on the allegation that, while functioning as Chief Manager, he failed to discharge duties with devotion and diligence, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank official, and acted prejudicially to the Bank’s interest, thereby violating Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992., “SBI Service Rules” The charge, as framed, referred to the statement of imputations, which contained multiple allegations.

4. A departmental inquiry was held. Upon conclusion, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 24^th July, 2014, recorded that Allegation No. 1 stood proved and Allegation Nos. 5 and 6 stood partly proved, and imposed the penalty of censure along with a cash penalty of INR 20,000/-.

5. The Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 5^th November, 2014. A review was also preferred, which was rejected by the Review Committee by order dated 4^th June, 2015. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking judicial review of the disciplinary action, the appellate affirmance, and the review rejection. Petitioner’s Case

6. Counsel for the Petitioner assails the impugned order on multiple grounds, summarised as follows:

6.1. The disciplinary proceedings are alleged to be biased, pre-determined, and arbitrary, with the inquiry report reflecting a closed mind and ignoring or misreading the defence material. It is contended that the Petitioner acted

within the permissible authority of a Chief Manager in matters of recovery and NPA management, and that the proceedings were initiated to harass him and stall his career progression, including promotions due around 2014.

6.2. The inquiry is vitiated by breach of natural justice, as the complaint and investigation report forming the foundation of the proceedings were not supplied to the Petitioner, thereby denying him an effective opportunity of defence.

6.3. The appointing authority for the Petitioner’s post was the Chief General Manager, SBI, Local Head Office, New Delhi. Therefore, the General Manager, being an authority lower than the appointing authority, could not have acted as the Disciplinary Authority.

6.4. On merits, the finding on Allegation No. 1 is assailed on the ground that the Petitioner acted in accordance with the Regional Office instructions dated 30^th June, 2011, which prescribed pre-conditions for credit of rent arrears and withdrawal of cases that were not fulfilled by the landlords, who were wilful defaulters and whose account had turned NPA.

6.5. Similar objections are raised with respect to the findings on Allegation Nos. 5 and 6, which we