2026 Supreme(MP) 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.
A. K. Jain – Petitioner 
Versus 
The Chief General Manager & Appellate Authority State Bank Of India And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7096 of 2011 
Decided On : 28-01-2026

Procedural irregularities and negligence without ill-motive do not constitute misconduct. Parity in punishment must be maintained among co-delinquents in the same transaction; shockingly disproportionate punishment compared to others, without justifiable difference in role, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - Rules 19(3), 66, 67(f), 67(j), and 68(3)(ii) - Disciplinary proceedings after retirement - Punishment of dismissal from service - Parity among co-delinquents - Procedural irregularities versus misconduct - A disciplinary proceeding initiated before retirement can be continued and concluded as if the officer continues to be in service pursuant to Rule 19(3) (Para 19-20) - If a Disciplinary Authority disagrees with an Enquiry Officer's report, it is mandatory to record proper reasons and provide the delinquent officer an opportunity to respond to such disagreement to comply with the principles of natural justice (Paras 21-23) - Misconduct implies an act arising from ill-motive; negligence simpliciter, errors of judgment, or innocent mistakes in following procedure do not constitute misconduct unless there is a breach of the provisions of the service rules (Paras 29-32).

(B) Principle of Parity - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed, including those found guilty - Parity must be maintained when imposing punishment on co-delinquents involved in the same transaction - The disciplinary authority cannot impose a stringent punishment for lesser offences while awarding minor penalties to others involved in identical incidents (Paras 42, 46-49) - Judicial interference is warranted if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the disparity in treatment is not justified by a difference in role or responsibility (Paras 50-52).

(C) Speaking Orders - The disciplinary and appellate authorities must render independent findings and record reasons for accepting or rejecting representations - Mechanical reproduction of findings without reasoning frustrates the cause of justice (Paras 53-54).

Facts of the case:
An employee, serving as a Field Officer and Temporary Branch Manager, was charge-sheeted for irregularities in recommending and sanctioning loans against warehouse receipts, which resulted in financial loss due to fraud committed by a warehouse owner. The employee retired on superannuation, but subsequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service. Two other co-delinquents involved in the same transaction, including the permanent Branch Manager, were awarded minor penalties (reduction in time scale) despite being associated with higher financial losses. The employee was also acquitted by a criminal court on the same charges.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the dismissal order was shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory. The proceedings were marred by violations of natural justice, as the employee was not provided with comments used by the appellate authority, and the disciplinary authority failed to provide reasoned orders when disagreeing with the enquiry report. The acts committed were procedural lapses and negligence rather than misconduct, as no ill-motive or breach of specific service rules was established. The preferential treatment given to co-delinquents without justifiable grounds rendered the punishment arbitrary.

Issues: (i) Whether disciplinary proceedings can legally continue after an employee's retirement? (ii) Whether procedural omissions and negligence simpliciter amount to "misconduct" under the service rules? (iii) Whether the imposition of a major penalty on the petitioner, while co-delinquents received minor penalties for similar acts, violates the principle of parity and Article 14? (iv) Whether the failure to issue speaking orders and provide relevant comments violates the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: While service rules permit the continuation of enquiries post-retirement, the punishment must be proportionate and non-discriminatory. Mere procedural irregularities without evidence of ill-motive or misappropriation do not constitute misconduct. Where co-delinquents involved in the same incident are given lenient punishments, the imposition of a harsh penalty like dismissal on one individual, without a distinguishing difference in responsibility, is an exercise of bias and is legally unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned dismissal and appeal rejection orders quashed. Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation for a lesser punishment, with directions to the authority to consider retiral benefits and conduct an enquiry into suppressed recovery facts.

ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

“(i) That, the dismissal order which is patently illegal and not valid, issued by the Disciplinary Authority vide their letter reference no.VIG/AVK/1109 dated 06.12.2010 Annexure P/6 and subsequent confirmation order by appellate authority dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P/8) imposed upon the Petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule No.67(j) of State Bank of India Officer Service Rule 1992 is liable to be quashed being irrational and harsh and discriminatory in view of the minor penalty so awarded to the Respondents No.4 and 5 for the same act or omission under the joint liability in view of minor penalty imposed on Respondents no.4 and 5 for the same acts/omission or alleged misconduct (Annexure P/9 in colly).

(ii) That, the Petitioner is liable to get his Pensionary, Gratuity, C.P.F. etc. benefits as he serve the establishments of SBI for more than 39 years dedicatly and blotlessly, with interest alongwith arrears w.e.f. 01.09.2010, since during the pendency of the D.E, he retired on superannuation on 31.08.2010.

(iii) That, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and also the cost of unwanted litigation before this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) That, any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be also awarded.”

A. Submission of Petitioner :

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Assistant vide order dated 16.12.1970. Thereafter, again petitioner was appointed as Rural Development Officer in respondent/Bank by order dated 05.07.1979 and by order dated 01.08.1985 petitioner was promoted to the post of MMGS-II Officer in SBI. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2007 when petitioner was posted as Field Officer, there was a scheme of Bank floated for providing loans to farmers called as “Private Warehouse-Produce Marketing Loan Scheme”. Being a field officer, petitioner had responsibility of receiving loan applications related documents, ensuring authenticity of them, preparing proposals and recommending them to sanctioning authority. It is submitted that respondent No.4, sanctioning authority, was under no obligation to sanction each and every recommended proposal. It is submitted that explanation was called from petitioner regarding some alleged irregularities in sanction of demand loans against warehouse receipts at Naugaon Branch in District Chhatarpur. Thereafter, petitioner submitted reply vide Annexure P-2 dated 19.06.2009 explaining that at the time of sanctioning of loan, warehouse receipts (WHR) were backed with adequate stocks and at the time of periodic inspections, stock was found to be diluted by the warehouse owner fraudulently, for which petitioner requested to lodge FIR against warehouse owner M/s B.D. More Warehouse. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without considering the explanation submitted by petitioner charge-sheet dated 26.10.2009 was issued alleging two charges with 6 and 4 allegations respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that similar and identical charge-sheets were issued to respondents No.4 and 5, the then Branch Manager and another Field Officer making same allegations/charges with different figures of alleged financial loss. It is further submitted that thereafter petitioner submitted reply dated 16.11.2009 to charge-sheet that he already explained the relative points in his letter dated 19.06.2009. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority forwarded the enquiry report with his dissenting note regarding allegation No.1(ii), seeking comments from petitioner. Petitioner submitted representation dated 27.07.2010 explaining each and every allegation and submitting that none of the allegations is proved. He also submitted that he had not done anything contrary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document